A Y 2010-11 : ASSESSEE PAID ADVANCE TAX OF RS.2 LAKHS, WHICH IS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS. THE AO IN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) DENIED CREDIT FOR THE SAID PAYMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN FILED. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE AO'S ACTION IN NOT GIVING CREDIT FOR THE ADVANCE TAX PAYMENT. PLEASE ADVISE THE COURSE TO ADOPT FOR GETTING CREDIT. IS THERE ANY CIRCULAR OR JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE MATTER?
► Read Answer
The requirement of Section 24(b) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed, or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital is allowable. The deduction can be claimed while computing the income from house property . On the facts the income from house property is not offered in the hands of co -borrower . Facts also not clear whether the co -borrower is co -owner . on the facts the assessee may not be eligible to claim deduction. under section 24(b) of the Act. In ITO v. Mamta Rajivkumar Agarwal (Smt.) (2022) 100 ITR…
► Read Answer
Search was condected in June ,2018.Assessment framed u/s 153 for the A.Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19 and 143(3) for the A.Y.2019-20. In first appeal CIT(A) has given some relief. Assessee filed appeal before the ITAT for the A.Y. 2019-20,2018-19 and 2017-18. The Hon'ble Tribunal declared the search as illegal and unjusified. What will be position for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18. In these Assessment Years assessee has not filed appeal to the ITAT. Whether these assessments u/s 153A will be treated as quashed. Kindly clear the legal position.
► Read Answer
Sir, the assessee is a non resident. Her ESOP shares were sold in the financial year 20-21. The tax is paid under the head capital gains (Short term). The quantum of taxable income is Rs.106 Lakhs. She has no other income in India in any of the subsequent years or earlier years. The short term tax rate is 15%. There is a view that AMT is applicable. For that year the AMT rate was 18.5%. Please clarify on the applicability of AMT.
► Read Answer
Appellant has given loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- in F.Y. 2008-09 to ABC through banking channels. Just before the debit of Rs. 30,00,000/- there is a credit in the bank A/c on account of repayment of loan received by the Appellant from his debtor which was given two years back through banking channels. Interest on the said amount and TDS thereon is reflected in Form 26AS and shown in ITR. On the basis of search in the case of ABC it was concluded by the Investigation wing that the loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- is accomodation entry. Notice u/s 148 was issued…
► Read Answer
In case of an HUF of 3 persons with one as Karta and the other two as co-parceners, what happens to the HUF when the two co-parceners expire? Can the HUF continue? What is the tax treatment in such a case?
► Read Answer
A private limited company sells 26% of its shares to a person who purchases the solar power generated by the company. Can the shares be sold at face value, as the shares will be bought by the sellers on termination of the contract
► Read Answer
Assessee is a Trust running school, whose gross receipt falls under Rs. 5cr. For a.y. 23-24 the assessee trust filed it's ITR u/s 139(4C) belatedly on 30.10.23 and claimed exemption u/s 10(23c)(iiiad). In Schedule IE-4, following details were filled : Annual gross receipt - 50L Amount applied for objective - 48L Balance accumulated - 2L In Part B2 of Part B - TI : exemption amount claimed u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) - 2L Now, the assessee has received adjustment notice u/s 143(1)(a)(ii), which says : "Income due to disallowance of exemption under clauses of Section 10 entered at Sl No. 3 of…
► Read Answer
Assessing officer has passed the Assessment order U/SEc, 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 5 Cr on account of unproved purchases after getting an approval form the Addl.CIT. However, the approval granted by Additional CIT U/Sec.153D of the Act does not contain Document Identification Number (DIN) which according to the Assessee is in contravention to CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. Assessee has filed an appeal before CIT and has taken the ground that The assessment order passed U/Sec.144 of the Act is bad in law and void ab intio on ground that the approval granted by…
► Read Answer
Assessee is developers of the real estate and is having unsold units in the projects developed by him. In respect of unsold units completion certificate from the competent authority has been received in the year 2015-16. Assessing officer has made the addition on account of deemed rent in the hands of assessee in the A.Y. 2018-19 and he has relied upon the provisions of Sec. 23(5) which are applicable for 1.04.2018. Assessee has submitted that Sec. 23(5) is beneficial provision and applicable form 1.04.2018 and therefore two years moratorium period given in the SEc. 23(5) is applicable and therefore no…
► Read Answer
CREDIT FOR PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX