Assessee is Private Limited company . For A.Y. 2020-21, has opted to be taxed U/SEc. 115BAA of the Act. For The A.Y. 2019-20, assessee has paid the tax as per regular provisions. In the A.Y. 2019-20, there was unutilised additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee company as per the proviso to section 32(1) of the Act and proviso to section 115BAA, wherein it is provided that, where there is a depreciation allowance in respect of a block of a asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the AY beginning on first day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall be made to the WDV of such block as on 01.04.2019 in the prescribed manner, if the option under sub-section (5) is exercised for PY relevant to AY beginning on 01.04.2020. In view of above proviso to section 115BAA, the company has claimed the balance depreciation for AY 2019-2020, which was not allowed in the AY 2019-2020 as per proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. In the year 2021. The assessing officer has rejected the contention on the ground that since the assessee has opted to be taxed u/s 115BAA, the assessee is not eligible for claim of carry forward unutilised additional depreciation for A.Y  2019-2020. Whether the action of the AO is justified in law? Please guide.

read more

Assessee is an individual. and for A.Y. 2012-13 since his appeal was pending before the CIT(A) has opted for the VSVS and fill up the form 1 and 2, As per the Advice of his Lawyer has paid the tax as per working of the liability given by the lawyer . However , while issuing Form 3, the liability worked out by the PCIT is more by Rs. 12/- , and where as as per Lawyer the assessee has paid correct amount. PCIT is rejecting his application under VSVS as there is short payment of Rs. 12/- . Please guide.

read more

Assessee is Partnership Firm having 3 partners . Son and daughter of the one partner are working as employee for last more than 5 years . All the partners have decided to take the Term Policy( which is not key man Ins Policy)  in the name of these employees to safe guard the interest of firm, therefore decided to claim the same as deduction U/SEc. 37 of the Act. The nominee of the policy will be Firm. Whether this is allowable deduction in the hands of firm U/Sec. 37 of the Act ? Whether the premium paid will be considered as perquisite in the hands of employee? Pl. guide

read more

My Arrogant father brought few properties under my  name. I trusted him, signed on documents wherever needed my signature.  He never revealed the details, I never asked him.  I was a fool to believe him, all this happened more than 20 years ago. These properties are now in dispute, other parties are contacting me, threatening legal actions and other consequence. I am asking my father to explain the details, but he is so arrogant, he claims it is none of my business, since those properties belong to him. I agree with him that I didn’t contribute anything in purchasing the properties. I am asking my father to either resolve the issues with thirds parties or explain the details to me so that I can handle with third parties.  He stopped communicating with me.  I have no stake in the property, but it has become a big headache for me. I am requesting him to transfer all the properties under to whomever he likes, but he is not responding. I know I can send legal notice, but he is clever enough to reply and avoid any further legal action. As per Benami act,  I am his son and he can legally buy property. Is there any action I can take against him to transfer properties back to him?

read more

We have settled a dispute under Direct Tax VsV Scheme. We would like to withdraw the appeal. Please provide any template for reference.

read more

THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 144 RWS 147 FOR AAY2013-14MADE ON 28.11.2019  IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT LEVIED INTEREST U S 234B(1)  THE  ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICAATION AGAINST THE ASSESSMNT ORDER UNDER VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT 2020 AND MADE THE PAYMENT FOR WHICH FORM 4DTVSV RECEIVED . NOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTS TO AMEND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THERE IS A MISTAKE APPAARENT FROM THE RECORD WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 154/155 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961.PLEASE ADVICE HOW TO GO IN THIS MATTER  

read more

Regarding sale of rural agricultural land i want to know cash receipt of any amt could be deposited in Bank. If so or so not y wt is the reason . Y u k not dep cash received on sale of agriculture land as it is not a income according to capital asset or gain.              

read more

Assessee is  pvt limited co . One of the share holder is interested in purchase of shares of another share holder. Whether he can purchase the shares at the  face value? Or at the price ignoring the market vlaue of rights in immovable property? Whether valuation report as per Rule. 11UA is mandatory? Whether liability  which may require for the claim on the rights in immovable property can be consider while working of value of share  can be consider  even if not recorded in books of accounts ? pl guide .

read more

A notice calling for information u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is issued on 17.03.2022 giving time to respond by 23.03.2022. The Act provides for notice of minimum 7 days and maximum 30 days. Please advise whether the notice mentioned above is valid in law as it included both the days i.e. date of issue and date of compliance while computing 7 days time. Kindly also advise whether the assessee should comply to the notice by 23.03.2022 and submit details or should challenge teh validity of the notice. Thanks

read more

Assessee is company.  Consequent to search proceedings U/SEc. 132 of the Act  in the Year 2015-16, assessee co filed the Returns of income in response in response to Notice U/SEc. 153A for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2016-17. Assessment U/SEc. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) were completed on 28.12.2017 as per the income disclosed in the Return as no incriminating material was found. Thereafter Audit objection was received by the assessee co for A.Y. 2013-14, where the diffrence in sale as per assessment order  and audit report under MVAT act was pointed out. The department has issued Notice U/Sec. 154 on 22.05.2018, to which assessee co has given elaborate reply to which there was no response  and thereafter on 12.02.2020, assessee co received the Notice u/Sec. 263 on the basis of only probability  and liikely hood error in the assessment for all years like in A.Y. 2013-14. pl guide on following issues: whether proceedings U/Sec. 263 can be initiated in case of search assessment for all the years which have been completed on the basis of income disclosed by the asssessee co in the Return of Income filed in response to notice U/Sec. 153A on the ground that there is no incriminating material? whether proceedings U/Sec. 263 can be initiated on the basis of Audit objection? In the given case whether the time limit for 263 proceedings commence from the date of original assessement or the date of assessment order completed U/Sec.153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act.

read more