The assessee during the year under consideration sold unlisted shares on 16.06.2017 taxable as LTCG and claimed the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on account of amount invested in Residential House Property As per department the assessee is ineligible to claim deduction u/s 54F of the Act as he owned two residential house property, apart from the new residential property. Assessee has executed registered agreement for assignment of the flat owned by him on 05.04.2017. The assessee has received more than 97% of the consideration as on 30.04.2017 and accordingly gave the possession of the said flat. Affidavit of…
► Read Answer
Assessee is Partnership firm of two person, father and son . Firm has assets which includes immovable property on which depreciation is claimed and also other current assets like stock in trade etc. On 4.07.2020, one of the partners I.e. father expired . Since there are no legal heirs , the other partner I.e. son become the proprietor of the business. Kindly guide whether provision of Sec. 9(b) and 45(4) are applicable and implications in the hands of sole surviving member in the family.
► Read Answer
My Form 4 is not accepting by new portal in the final stage of FORM4 submission . Shows reason " Invalid format of ARN" . I am able to enter payment details.(no option for challan attachment ). Asking for proof of withdrawal. Appeal pending with CIT(A). Even if attaching acknowledgement of submission on hearing and attaching that acknowledgement, showing error. Any specified format for APPEAL withdrawal proof on FORM4 .
► Read Answer
Ancestral Urban Agri. Land had been converted into NA Land in FY 2017-18 and ultimately sold in FY 2021-22. For the purpose of computing capital gains, while determining COA as on 01-04-2001, whose FMV is to be taken - i.e. applicable to Urban Agri. Land or NA Land? Also whether is it possible to take COA as on the date the Urban Agri. Land was converted to NA Land? Thanks.
► Read Answer
During the course of search/ Survey action some incriminating documents found which indicates assessee has received on money in cash in excess of Rs. 2lakh from flat purchasers. He surrender the same and paid the taxes. Whether penalty U/Sec. 271D can be levied on this on money taxed as undisclosed income.
► Read Answer
PROVIDE ME ALL THE JUDGEMENTS THAT ARE IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO JURIDICTION
► Read Answer
Search & Sezure action u/s 132 was conducted on 19.06.2018. Assessments for the A.Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19 were completed u/s 153A on 14.08.20121. Assessment for the Assessment Year 2019-20 was completed u/s 143(3). The Government has extended date from time to time to complete the assessment u/s 143(3). In the light of extended period what is last date to complete the assessment u/s 143(3) for AO for the Year 2019-20. Kinly inform about latest circular on the subject. It is also requested to please inform whether prior approval to select the case for scrutiny (part priod is searched period) is…
► Read Answer
Sir, In one case, the CIT u/s 263 has set aside an assesssment u/s143(3) for a particular issue to be verfied by the assessing officer. However for the same assessment year, the assessing officer has re opened u/s 147 on another issue. Whether two proceedings is possible for same assesment year. How to proceed to re opening notice, pl advice
► Read Answer
1.Assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/147 making additions on account of discrepancies found in survey on account of Cash in hand and Stock in trade etc. 2.On appeal the additions made by A.O. were confirmed by CIT(A) vide order dated 06/02/2020 and ITAT order dated 08/07/2016. 3.Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.4,60,000 was levied vide order dated 26/04/2017. 4.On appeal CIT(A) deleted the Penalty on the sole ground taken regarding limitation stating that - "order of the ITAT was passed on 08/07/2016 , therefore the penalty order must have been passed by the A.O. upto 31/03/2017. However the A.O. has passed the…
► Read Answer
Additions were made in the Assessment order on account of discrepancies found in stock in trade ,cash in hand etc. The same was confirmed by CIT(A) and also by ITAT Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of Rs.600000 was levied by A.O. The same was deleted by CIT(A) on the legal ground that the penalty was passed after 6 months from the date of ITAT order. The department has filed appeal against the order of CIT (A) deleting the aforesaid penalty on 2 grounds: 1.The order of ITAT was received in the office of CIT after 3 months from the date of ITAT…
► Read Answer
Claim u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961