Sold house involving LTCG – What are the must-to-d0 as the proceeds have been kept in parents’ Savings & FD Bank Accounts; What would be the index from 2009 (purchase-deed) to 2021 (sale deed) ? For purchase, part investment was from Sister, who has now been paid with compensation for those 12 years – Eligible Interest on such borrowed money was never claimed in any of the Assessment Years from FY 2009-10 till FY 2020-21;

read more

Assesee is pvt limited co engaged in the manufacturing of steel billets. Search action U/sec. 132 was conducted In the month of May 2021. Notice u/Sec. 148 dated 28.03.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18 on the basis of information of Sales tax department about purchases one party. Assessee could not upload the return on due to problem at site , also have evidence for that, as complaint also made. So ultimately on 1.03.2022, assesee has submitted return manually to consider the original return filed u/sec.139(1) as return in response to Notice u/Sec. 148. Then asked the reasons and took objections. AO passed the speaking order rejecting objection and issued show cause Notice on 23.03.2022 asking as to show cause as to why purchases from few other parties should not be disallowed and ask to submit reply by 28.03.2022. Purchases from these parties are almost 80% of total purchases. Assessee has submitted reply and also stated that time may be given and made reference to JCIT u/Sec. 144A explaining all facts and give direction for not using any material found in search as this year again will be covered in search proceedings and JCIT also gave the directions to AO on 30.03.2022 for not using search material in this assessment. However AO passed the assessment order disallowed purchases which are almost 80% of total purchases on following grounds 1. Assessee co has not responded to 148 in time and therefore proceedure as laid down in decision of GKN drive shaft could not be followed. 2. Summonce issued to parties were not responded and therefore these purchases are bogus ignoring the submissions given by the Assessee co 3. Directions of JCIT u/Sec. 144A have been complied as he has not made addition by using material found in search. whether AO action is justified ? when Notice u/Sec. 148 reference is only for one party about bogus purchases? when he has not rejected books and accepted total sales when few parties have responded to summonce which were issued at flag end of tine barring date pl guide.

read more

when is the last day for the assesing officer to pass order for the financial year 2019-2020 for scrutiny under section 143(3). what happens if no order is passed by the due date . is any extension given beyond 31-03-2022 due to covid

read more

Partner retires in March 2020, but his account is settled in April 2020 by cash payment* – Is s.45(4) triggered, which is effective from AY 2021-22? S.45(4) does not apply ► ‘Reconstitution’ is defined as where a person “ceases” to be a partner of firm – where such cessation took place before introduction of law, it is not ‘reconstitution’ ► S.45(4) only shifts timing of taxation to actual receipt – basis of taxation continues to be accrual – which, in the present case, happened in March 2020 ► Receipt as also its connection with reconstitution are twin requirements for satisfaction of charge, which is triggered only when both these events occur after April 2020 ► Very clear provisions (along the lines of Explanations 5 to 7 to s.9(1)(i) for indirect transfer) are needed to trigger charge in respect of past non-taxable events ► Analogy of s.46(2) cannot be applied as liquidation of a company is a continuing event while the retirement / reconstitution is a snapshot event ► While receipts pre-April 2020 would go untaxed, entirety of partner’s capital account balance may come up for deduction against receipts post April 2020, which may give rise to absurd results. S.9B does not apply ► Retirement in March 2020 could not have resulted into creation of a debt against firm – legally, a partner can never be creditor of the firm; he is creditor of other partners ► In absence of saving clause for past reconstitution, lacuna in legislation cannot justify the trigger of charge ► View of application may result in s.9B being applied even to dissolution pre 1 April 1987 (which was tax neutral) and create double whammy in absence of cost step-up to partner u/s. 49(1)(iii)(b). Since Sec. 9B and 45(4) apply to receipts by partner from firm on or after 1.04.2020, in connection with dissolution or reconstitution of firm. Therefore, question arises as to whether these sections applies to such receipts in connection with dissolution or re-constitution which took place prior to 01.04.2020? The literal interpretation suggests that the date of receipt being critical, the date of dissolution/re-constitution is immaterial as long as the receipt is in connection with dissolution / reconstitution. One possible counter to this interpretation is that the erstwhile section 45(4) dealt with distribution of capital asset on dissolution or otherwise of the firm and it held the field till 31.03.2020. Section 9B of the Act delas with receipt in connection with re-constitution or dissolution while substituted section 45(4) delas with receipt in connection with re-constitution. On the basis of this reasoning, is it possible to interpret that new provisions are applicable only when both the dissolution / reconstitution and receipt have taken place after 01.04.2021. One more reasoning which supports this contention / interpretation is that once the dissolution / re-constitution has taken place prior to 01.04.2021, respective rights arising from such dissolution/ re-constitution crystalized on the date of such dissolution/ reconstitution. Any receipt thereafter, is only in relation to such rights which crystalised before the effective date of the new provisions. Is this interpretation is correct in support of the dissolution deed/reconstitution deed executed prior to March, 2021 ? Please Guide

read more

A notice under section 148A has been issued on the assessee for re-assessment of AY 2018-19. Since the assessee was already assessed for AY 2018-19 in an earlier assessment. Can the assessee do the following on receipt of notice under section 148A: (1) Ask the AO for providing the ‘reasons to believe,’ considering that under the new regime notice under section 148 is issued on the basis of the ‘information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment’? (2) Can the assessee object to the reasons to believe furnished by the AO on the grounds of ‘change in opinion,’ considering the assessee for AY 2018-19 has already been assessed? (3) whether the contention of ‘change of opinion’ (based on earlier judicial precedents) is still valid under the new regime? Thanks in advance!

read more

Tds deducted from bills raised on HAM Project .Bills debited to w i p account shown in assets side .No sales or revenue receipt is there .Huge amount of tds deducted .whether the Sade tds is required to carry forward to next year till we receive annuity or can be claimed as refund on current assessment year? Or whether assesee can offer the income to the extent of TDS and claim the TDS every year.pl guide .

read more

The Honable Courts of various States has quashed the Notice issued under Section 148 after the 31.03.2021. My question is once notice issued and quashed by the Honable Court (irrespective of income involved), can Income Tax Authorities issued the Notice under 148a on same issue after 31.03.2022. If so does it voilate the Fundament Right 20 which protect against the double jeapardi

read more

Service provider (individual) has provided supply of man-power service to body corporate in FY 2015-16. Service receiver has already laid service tax on RCM on said transaction. department held that – service provided is not manpower service and demanded service tax from service provider. i did find case law wherein it is held that – if service receiver has paid ST to service provider (who had charged in his bill), then service receiver not required to pay ST on RCM as it will amount to double taxation. the above case are not directly applicable in my case. request to guide me – provide line of argument and relevant case laws.

read more

The assessee company original assessment for asst year 2006-07 was completed u/s 143(3) in 2008. Assessee case was reopened in 2010 and 143(3)/147 was done in 2010.Assessee paid taX determined within 30 days in 2011. ASSESSEE preferred appeal and got part relief in 2011 from cit appeal.In itat also some relief was granted IN 2016/2019 .The assessee was given appeal effect order in 2022 january for both cit appeal and itat .(appeal effect given in jan 2022 for both). However on perusal it is seen that interest u/s 244A is 6 pc per annum.The assessee feels that interest u/s 244A(1A) THAT IS ADDITIONAL 3 PC PER ANNUM BE ALSO GRANTED. QUESTIONS: 1.WHAT SHOULD BE INTEREST PERCENT FOR LAST 11 YEARS. 2.HOW TO MOVE AFTER CREDIT OF REFUNDS AND INTEREST.WHETHER APPEAL LIES OF 147/250 APPEAL EFFECT ORDER AND 147/254 APPEAL EFFECT ORDER.OR RECTIFICATION WILL SUFFICE.THE AO IS SILENT ON 244A(1A) ALL TOGETHER.

read more

The assessee is an individual engaged in the retail trade business. He has offered the income u/s 44AD by applying net profit rate at 10% of gross receipts of Rs. 15,10,125/-. For A.Y 2015-16, on the basis of information that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.8,70,500/- in bank. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee has stated this cash is deposited out of his business receipts of Rs. 15,10,125/- and which is more than cash deposited in savings bank and therefore no addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account can be made. The AO has not appreciated the explanation of the assessee and made the addition of entire cash deposits of Rs. 8,70,500/-. Is action of AO justified ? Please Guide.

read more