Yes, An SLP numbered SLP(C) No. 011498 - 011498/2018 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on April 23, 2018. The same was Dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated November 22, 2019. (read more)

In this specific case, given the scant details that have been provided, the Judgement of the Third Member of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Perfect Thread Mills Ltd. v. DCIT [2020] 181 ITD 1 (Mum)(Trib) is relevant. The Tribunal held that the bank receives consideration from the sale of such… (read more)

Section 47A(3) deals with the consequence of the provisio to Section 47(xiii) not being complied with. The said proviso to Section 47(xiii) does not impose any conditions upon the future event post conversion upon the company. Therefore a view can be taken that this merger may not come under the mischief of Section 47A as… (read more)

The Privy Council in Anant Bhikappa Patil v. Shankar Ramachandra Patil AIR 1943 PC 196 held that the coparcenary must be taken to continue so long as there was alive a widow of the deceased coparcener. In CIT v. Veerapa Chettiar,(1970) 76 ITR 467(SC) it is held that even after the death of the sole… (read more)

The rectification application may need to be filed through the Income-tax Portal. The detailed process for filing of application for rectification of a mistake apparent from the record is to be found at https://www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/eFiling/Portal/StaticPDF/Rectification_Brochures.pdf The rectification application may be filed online. If it is not considered, the Assessee shall have the option of filing of… (read more)

Ans. : It seems the reason given by the Assessing Officer is correct, as the Assessee is filling Return of income under presumptive taxation i.e. u/s.44AD i.e. 8% of the total turnover. If the amount is credited in Bank which is more than the turnover the recording of reasons may be correct . If the… (read more)

As we understand, The Assessee will have the liberty to file Form 10 belatedly and be entitled to statutory benefit. it is incumbent upon concerned authority to examine admissibility of benefit than to foreclose assessee on technicalities. This has been upheld by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v.… (read more)

Based on our understanding of the question, Assuming the assessee is engaged in business and not in profession. Tax Audit is applicable if total sales, turnover or gross receipt from business during the previous year exceeds Rs. 1 crore. (read more)

You may file appeal against the Assessment order. If the addition is deleted then penalty will also be deleted. Note : The assessee should produce evidence before the Appellate Authorities in the form of confirmation , photographs , and may also file Affidavit in the Appellate proceedings by making application for admitting the additional evidence… (read more)

Yes unequal Partition is permissible. Kindly refer CGT v N.S. Getti Chettiar (1971) 82 ITR 599 (SC). Member may accept a smaller/larger share on partition or he may renounce his right fully. But Income Tax Department has no right to avoid partition on the ground of inequality. [M.S.M. Meyappa Chettiar v. CIT 18 ITR 586… (read more)