The Order under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) can be challenged if an order is passed without giving at least 7 days’ time for the assessee to respond to the Notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. Yes, uploading on the portal amounts to good service. As long as the document… (read more)

Yes, in our view, the same is a clear-cut change of opinion and the contention of change of opinion must be raised. No authority has the power to review its own order unless the same has been statutorily provided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas v. UOI & Ors. (2000) 6… (read more)

Please file writ petition before High Court . Make CBDT also one of the respondent . High Court will direct the department to issue form No 5 . (read more)

Every year, the land has been shown in the books of the firm as its own property. Therefore, the land is duly recorded as the property of the Firm. Registration of an immovable property is a mere formality and does not amount to purchase of the immovable property. The actual year of purchase of property… (read more)

The action is not justified. When there is such difference then authorities are required to take action as per section 42(3) of CGST Act, which reads as under as applicable at relevant period. “(3) Where the input tax credit claimed by a recipient in respect of an inward supply is in excess of the tax… (read more)

As we understand, the assessee has received a fresh Notice under section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) for AY 2014-15. By virtue of first proviso to section 149 of the Act, the same is time barred. The Assessee would have to explain the same in its response to the notice issued under section… (read more)

The assessee can file writ petition before the High Court at the earliest . The High Court may condone the delay . In Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT ( 2017) 398 ITR 250 /160 DTR 33 / 251 Taxman 270 / 299 CTR 463 ( Bom)(HC) , the delay of 2984 days in filing the… (read more)

The Hon’ble ITAT Gauhati Bench in the case of Shri Abdul Hannan v. ITO ITA 46/Gau/2019 dated July 17, 2020 held that where the assessing officer has applied his mind and treated the undisclosed amount in bank account as undisclosed business receipt or turnover of the assessee, therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act… (read more)

: This is a debatable issue. The intention of the legislature while enacting section 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961(Act) is to ensure that the capital of the assessee is not eroded. Expecting an assessee to invest under section 54 and 54F of the Act, albeit the Capital Gain accrues at a much… (read more)