This depends from case to case. If there is an incorrect assumption of jurisdiction, the same may be challenged by filing a Writ Petition before the jurisdictional High Court. One can also file a rectification application if there is an apparent mistake in the order. (read more)

Section 44AD of the Act is for presumptive income from Business. The burden is on the assessee to prove that money lending is the business of the assessee. PCIT v. Mohan Bhagwatprasad Agrawal (2020) 425 ITR 119 / 270 Taxman 126 / 115 taxmann.com 69 / 270 Taxman 126 (Guj.)(HC) . Depends on facts of… (read more)

As we understand, the building was a business asset and depreciation was claimed. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Meena V. Pamnani (Smt.) v. CIT (2017) 159 DTR 1/251 Taxman 100/( 2018) 404 ITR 548 (Bom) (HC) held that once depreciation is allowed on an asset it would remain a business asset… (read more)

The time limit for settlement under VSVA and IDS is over. There is no amnesty scheme available to the assessee. (read more)

Yes, if other conditions are satisfied, an assessee would be allowed to settle an appeal under VSVA. The settlement is appeal-wise and not issue-wise. Assuming the appeal of the revenue before the ITAT was condoned. The assessee could still settle the revenue under VSVA and would be subjected to the same liability. (read more)

Yes, the action of the Assessing Officer is valid. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of PCIT v. Manju Osatwal (2022) 433 ITR 107 (Cal) (HC) held that once a declaration made by the assessee under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS) has been accepted by Principal Commissioner, such authority is estopped from… (read more)

There is no bar on the issuance of a Notice under section 153C of the Act. The only condition is that the assessments must complete within the prescribed time under section 153B of the Act. (read more)

The facts of the case would have to be studied. Where proceedings under section 263 of the Act were quashed because the Ld. AO has taken a view which is a possible view, merely because it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue would not result in revisionary proceedings. Since the Ld. Ao has… (read more)

Scrutiny proceedings and proceedings under sections 269SS and 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961(Act) are independent of each other. The penalty is levied on the basis of the statement recorded and circumstantial evidence. The assessee has the right to request for cross-examination as not granting the same would be in violation of the principles of… (read more)