Rural agricultural land purchased as per documents at Rs. 9,00,000/- and DLC rate was 37,00,000/- (Local stamp duty rate). AO made addition of this difference u/s 56(2)(vii)(b). whether AO’s action is correct when rutal agricultural agricultural land is not subject to capital gain in thehands of saller. Kindly quote case laws on the subject. Smilar situation is in the A.Y. 2015-16,2016-17 and 2017-18. Kinly guide.

read more

In the case of non-government employees, the exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) is to be  determined with reference to the leave to their credit at the time of retirement on superannuation, or otherwise, subject to a maximum of cash equivalent of leave salary of ten months’ leave calculated on the basis of average salary drawn during the 10 months immediately preceding his retirement. The entitlement of earned leave cannot exceed 30 days for every year of actual service rendered. This exemption  is to be further limited to the maximum amount specified by the Government of India. The maximum limit of exemption is not specified in the sub-clause. Instead, it is provided that the limit may be specified by the Central Government by way of notification in the Official Gazette, having regard to the limit applicable to the Central Government employees. The government vide Notification No. 123/2002 in S.O. 588(E), dated 31-5-2002 specified the limit of Rs. 3,00,000 under section 10(10AA)(ii) in relation to such employees who retire, whether on superannuation or otherwise, after 1-4-1998.Thereafter no notification has so far been issued in this regard. Query is Whether employees of Nationalised Banks and Public Sector Undertakings are Government Employees or Non-Government Employees. And Leave Salary Encashment received by them is fully exempt or exempt upto specified Limit.

read more

Can CBDT override the delegated legislation? Can notice be issued under Section 148 according to the old regime, despite the new regime?

read more

Assessee has filed declaration under DVSVS Act  , and out of total tax payable under the scheme, paid substantial amount before 30.09.2021. Whether assessee has to pay additional tax @10% on gross tax payable under the scheme or on the net amount payable after deducting the amount paid before 30.09.2021. PCIT has considered additional tax @ 10% on the gross amount payable under DTVsVAct.  Please guide

read more

The assessee  is an individual and derives income from the business promoter builder. The assessee has disclosed an income of Rs.15,50,000/- under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) 2016. The assessee has paid two installments under IDS -2016. However, assesse has not paid the third installment of tax on such declared income under IDS, 2016 due to reasons beyond his control. The total amount paid under IDS was 3,48,752/- The assessment for the year under consideration was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dt 30.03.2018 and duly served to the assessee. AO has passed order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 and assessed the income at Rs.38,22,910/- by making an addition of Rs.15,50,000/- on the ground that the assessee had made a disclosure under IDS 2016 amounting to Rs.15,50,000/- however, has not complied with the conditions and therefore this income is chargeable to tax for A.Y 2016-17. AO has also passed penalty order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.6,97,500/- on 28.05.2019. On receipt of the said penalty order Petitioner came to know that in his case assessment order was also passed u/s 144. The assessee then filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order passed U/Sec. 144 of the Act and also against the penalty order levied U/Sec. 271(1) (c) of the Act on 22.06.2019. Both these appeals are pending before the CIT(A). Petitioner then uploaded an application in Form Number 1 and 2 under Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act on 22.03.2020 determining the gross tax payable under DTVSV Act, at Rs. 6,97,500/- and after taking the credit of Taxes paid amounting to Rs. 5,07,140.00 , the net amount payable was at Rs. 1,90,360.00. However the payment made by the assessee under IDS declaration  were remained to be claimed in the said application. The PCIT has issued the  form 3 under VSVS-Act, on 27.09.2021, asking the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,90,000.00 on or before 30.09.2021 and Rs. 2,59,750.00 after 30.09.2021. However assessee could not verify the same due to errors in the Portal. Accordingly, the assessee  voluntarily paid Rs. 2,09,400.00 on 30.10.2021 by considering the net amount payable as per Form No. 1 and 2 at Rs. 1,90,360/- plus 10% of this amount (190360*10% of 190360/- = 2,09,396/-) and also intimated that petitioner has paid Rs. 2,09,400.00. The Petitioner has considered the net amount payable , where as PCIT  has considered the Gross amount payable while calculating the amount payable while added additional 10% when the amount payable under DTVSV Act, is to be paid in the extended period up to 31.10.2020. The petitioner has paid Rs. 51000.00 on 1.11.2021 voluntarily. The petitioner has requested the PCIT to give credit of taxes paid under IDS-2016 amounting to Rs. 348752/- against the liability under DTVSVS vide letter dated 2.11.2021 in view of recent Bombay High Court decision in the case of Pinnacle Vastunirman Pvt. ltd. vs UOI (TS-805-HC-2021). PCIT is not accepting the request of the assessee of giving credit of taxes paid under IDS against the liability under DTVSVS and considering that application made  under DTVSVS is invalid  since the assessee has not made payment under DTVSVS in full, please guide .  

read more

SOME TRUCKS ARE REGISTERED UNDER HUF NAME UNDER SINGNATURE OF DECEASED KARTA. AFTER EXPIRY OF KARTA THE REMAINING MEMBER OF HUF ELECTED ELDER SON AS A KARTA OF FAMILY. HOW HAS AUTHORITY TO SALE TRUCKS. 1)PRESENT KARTA (MEMBERS ARE AUTHORISING) 2)WIFE OF DECEASED KARTA 3)ALL MEMBER OF HUF JOINTLY. THE RTO IS SAYING THAT 1) A SUCESSION CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED TO TRANSFER OF VEHICLE. 2) FIEST TRUCKS WILL BE TRANSFERED TO WIFE OF DECEASED KARTA AND THEN THAT TRUCKS CAN BE SOLD OR TRANSFER TO THIRD PARTY. THE RTO IS REFUSING THE AUTHORITY OF NEW KARTA EVEN AFTER AFFIDAVIT BY EACH MEMBER.AND ASKING FOR COURT ORDER.

read more

Can the amount deposited in the account of wife on selling of land can be considered as gift under section 56(2)(vii), to the relative without any gift deed.  

read more

Sir, A company regd under sec 8 of the Companies Act, doing statistical  research wants to apply u/s 35(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act. Prescribed form for getting approval be adviced.  whether it can be applied for the year 2020-21. condonation is required,  kindly advice.

read more

Panchanamma and other related documents like seizure, inventory in the name of the assessee. Is AO correct if he invokes 153C when separate oath statement has been taken at the time of search seeking all clarifications about records and documents found in the name of the assessee himself

read more

Assessee firm has filed a declaration under IDS where in they have disclosed for AY 2015-16: Rs. 9,82,24,010/- as Business Income and For AY 2016-17: Rs. 1,15,04,953/- as Business Income. In the said declaration the assessee firm claimed the credit for the Advance Tax and TDS for both the assessment year. However CIT has denied the credit for the said payment on the ground that it is not permissible to give credit of advance tax in IDS. On the basis of this information the AO issued Notice U/Sec.148  for A.Y. 2017-18, on the ground of Invalid declaration due to non payment of taxes as CIT has not considered the amount paid by the assessee towards advance tax . whether assessee can file writ petition against the denial of credit of advance tax under IDS declaration? whether the AO is correct in issuing notice U/SEc.148 for A.Y. 2017-18 when the income declared under IDS is business income for A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17? please guide

read more