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 order on 26/04/2017 which is beyond the prescribed time limit as mentioned in section 275(1)(a) of the I.T. Act. 5.Against the order of the CIT(A) department has filed appeal on two grounds : (i) Order of the CIT(A) was received in the office of the principal CIT  on 07/10/2016 and therefore penalty order dated. 26/04/2017 is within time. (ii) The case of the assessee is covered under exceptions as per para- 10(a) of the circular no.03/2018 dated 1107/2018 f CBDT and further amendments thereto on 20/08/2018. Query : 1.How far ground no. 1 & 2 of the department is justified? 2.Whether penalty is covered in CBDT circular of low tax effect? If yes , any case law of CBDT circular in support of the same. 3.The assessee has not filed cross objection in ITAT whether now the assessee can challenge the penalty notice on the ground that – ‘ Have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’ In the penalty notice it has  not been specified whether the charge is on one ground or the other. Your valuable detailed reply will be highly appreciated. Thanks & Regards  

read more

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 order and penalty order was passed within 6 months from the date of receipt in CIT office and therefore levy of penalty is not justified. 2. The case of assessee is covered under exceptions as per para 10(a) of the circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 of CBDT and further amendments thereto on 20/08/2018.

read more

guidance value of an apartment which was booked with the builder during 2008, and took the possession in 2010. during the registration process, the builder registered under karnataka registration act the uds land portion cost ( based on guidance value) as per the agreement where as the construction cost of the apartment not included for registration purposes. it was practice generally followed by the builders for all the owners who so ever booked the property. During the relevant F.Y 2015 – 16  the assessee has sold house property for a consideration of Rs.1.00  crores as per sale deed document. The resale transaction value has been declared in the return of AY 2016-17 in the appropriate page and col.shown under the head income from capital gain in the return The only reason for disallowing the above amounts proposed by A.O. is to the effect that the assessee failed to registered the construction agreement value for the newly builtup apartment building Registration act differs from state to state. In this case the apartment booked during construction time, it’s not like that we are land owners and entered JDA joint development agreement for construction of apartment. In our case the assessing questioning the year of registration 2010, now why construction should not be registered in registration act which is different act to income tax act or any other laws The registration act comes state levy and it’s not central act Year 2010 is of retrospective periods where any new laws or regulations act amendments can not be applied for prior periods in 2015 year of resold thereafter assessment years investigating periods and the period until this litigation settled Construction cost is the money spent out of money saved which was earned as income of salary which has been taxed in the previous years and taxes were paid on those salary income earnings returns filed etc and the income tax authorities cannot charge taxes on the expenses of construction cost incurred or paid out. When income tax authorities to access the income and to access the expenditures incurred in any manner investment in property or business etc etc …

read more

Dear Sir, While filing ITR-3 for the A.Y. 2021-22. Declared the income under the head of “Income from the non-Specified profession without books of accounts” the filing software warning to fill the Balance Sheet and Profit & loss account for above-declared income. kindly help me with this issue. Thanking you, Mohamed Ali Tax Practitioner

read more

112A WHETHER FOR LTCG 112 A CAN BE OPTED AND LTC LOSS CAN BE CLAIMED SEPARATELY. MEANING THEREBY WHETHER ASSESSEE CAN OPT FOR 112A FOR GAIN AND OTHERS FOR LOSS ON EQUITY SALE AND ADJUST LOSS

read more

A partnership firm engaged in to real estate and construction activity. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Officer had raised contention of calculating notional rent U/s 22 and 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-18 on 6 unsold completed units held as stock in trade of the business, for which BU permission was already received 1 year ago. The Ld. Officer computed notional rent and made addition under the head “Income from House Property”. Is the Officer right in making such addition, given the facts that the partnership firm (builder) was holding such unsold unit as stock in trade for conducting business activity of selling such constructed units. Further, Can the assessee alternatively claim vacancy allowance if income is taxed Income from House Property

read more

In the aforesaid query the addition was made on account of investment in construction of house and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/147

read more

Liability of SERVICE TAX on RCM basis on service received of GTA was determined by the department. The assessee – partnership firm has paid such liability by making payment under the head CGST (as there was no service tax registration and officer told to make payment under CGST). Can the partnership firm claim ITC of such CGST paid in GST now.

read more

A search was conducted at various places of a group “G” thereafter, search was conducted in the case of persons who are connected or related with group “G”.  Search was conducted at the premises of Mr. X under the wrong presumption that Mr. X is connected/related with group “G”.  Mr. Y was similar named person of Mr. X. Actually, search was tobe conducted at the premisis of Mr. Y whereas it was wrongly conducted at the premises of Mr. X.  During the search at the premises of Mr. X, not a sigle document / paper / valuable article or any evidence which shows any relation or connection to group “G”.  In other words it can be said that the search was conducted at the premises of Mr. X in place of Mr. Y who happened to be a Director of that group “G”.  Mr. X has strong presumption that no satisfaction note was drawn in the name of Mr. X before issuance of search warrant.  Your valuable opinion is required on the point that whether writ petition under 226 is proper remedy or not for Mr. X.  At present post search assessment u/s. 153A have been completed and appeals have been filed.

read more

Mr A living in Mumbai expires, leaving behind a will for his assets, and how he wishes it distributed to his family. Several family members live in India (including the executor of the will), and some in USA (now US citizens, some born in USA). What are the tax implications for remitting the cash assets to family USA residents? PAN/Aadhar requirements? Annual amount limits etc …?

read more