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)

No. Under the principles of natural justice, all material or evidence relied upon by the tax authorities must be disclosed to the assessee and he must be given opportunity to rebut or explain it. In Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), the Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of evidence to the assessee… (read more)

There is no need to defer the registration date as the property is held by you for more than 24 months and constitutes a long-term capital asset. The gains will be exempt u/s 54. As regards the additional purchased portion of 23 sq ft, it is a fresh purchase from the developer and Section 45(5A)… (read more)

The purchase of the extra 23 sq ft does not trigger a separate capital gains event. Even without the purchase, there is a "transfer" u/s 45(5A) and short-term capital gains are taxable. However, deferral to February 2026 is desirable because this would make the original flat a long-term capital asset and qualify the gain for… (read more)

Recruitment and placement is not a "specified profession" under Section 44AA(1). Therefore, presumptive taxation at 50% of receipts under 44ADA is not available. Section 44AD will apply except if the businesses involves agency business, commission, brokerage etc. (read more)

If all the conditions of s. 2(14)(iii) are satisfied, the capital gain would not be taxable. The fact that income from agricultural activity is not shown should not be a bar. The principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii ... vs Smt. Maltibai R. Kadu and CBDT Circular… (read more)

As the search on A has yielded materials on B's supplies to C, Section 153C must be invoked instead of Section 148. (read more)

PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (2025) 474 ITR 175 has been distinguished in ACIT v. Dhiraj Parbat Gothi (Mum)(Trib), J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum) (Trib), Palmon Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Mum)(Trib), ITO v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal (Jaipur)(Trib) and Quality Heightcon Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(Mum)(Trib) (read more)

It is an unfortunate situation. A number of other taxpayers have raised similar grievances. I suggest you file a detailed petition with CPGRAMS. If that doesn't work, you may consider filing a Writ Petition in the High Court. (read more)

Self-acquired property can be disposed off at the will of the owner, including by giving a gift. Sections 122 to 129 of the Transfer of Property Act deal with gifts. Immovable properties like the commercial shop will require a registered deed and also payment of stamp duty. (read more)