Assuming the project is RERA-registered, the agreement to sell is standard and permitted for under-construction properties. It does not violate RERA or Section 45(5) (read more)

Logically, it should be so. There is a clarification u/s 194Q(5) which exempts the seller from collecting TCS u/s 206C(1H) if TDS is deducted under section 194Q. However, there is no explicit provision that exempts the seller from collecting TCS under section 206C(1)(vii) when TDS is deducted under section 194Q. (read more)

The transaction is merely a book entry. There is no "actual payment". So, neither Co will get a deduction until the amount is actually paid. (read more)

In my view, neither Section 45(4) nor 9B will apply because this is not a transfer by the firm to a partner. It is a transfer of a partner's interest to a third party (the trust). These sections do not target external gifts of interests. (read more)

Sections 194JA and 194JB were introduced by the Finance Act, 2020 with effect from April 1, 2020. (read more)

It is a debatable issue. In my view, the principal amount cannot be claimed as a deduction under Section 43B, as it is hit by Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). The fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit via fake invoices is an offence. The payment reverses the direct financial gain from this offence and restores the… (read more)

As per the proviso to section 206C(1H), if the buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q on the purchase of coal, the seller is exempted from collecting TCS under section 206C(1H) on that transaction. (read more)

Yes. U/ 45(5A), there is a transfer on redevelopment and capital gains are chargeable. Exemption u/s 54 will not be available as the reinvestment is in a commercial property. If the old property was depreciable, than the transaction will have to be processed as STCG u/s 50 by reducing the consideration from the block of… (read more)

Even prior to section 56(2)(viib), addition of unexplained credits such as share premium etc could be assessed u/s 68 as was done in CIT v. Lovely Exports 299 ITR 268 (SC), NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT 412 ITR 161 (SC) etc. If the AO has accepted the share capital as genuine, he… (read more)

Yes. The activity carried on by your mother is a business and not the medical profession as she is not a qualified dentist. In Ranjita Jena, the Tribunal recorded the following finding of fact: "13. From the facts and findings recorded by the AO, it is clear that the assessee was engaged in the medical… (read more)