Dear Sir, Ma’am, the query is as follows – Both Section 44AD and Section 44ADA prescribe a minimum threshold of declaration of income of 6%/8% and 50% of the turnover respectively in order to opt for presumptive taxation scheme, otherwise tax audit becomes applicable. These provisions also allow the assessee to declare income higher than the prescribed limit of 6%/8% and 50% in the return of income. A question arises whether declaring such higher income is compulsory in case where the actual income of the Assessee exceeds these threshhold limits or can the assessee continue to opt to declare income only on the basis of the prescribed limit ? If yes, then the capital accrual of the Assessee in the form of savings shall exceed the income declared in ITR and it may become hard to explain high-value expenditure. For e.g – Assessee engaged in profession has a turnover of INR 45 lakhs from business & profession chooses to declare income @50% i.e. INR 22.5 lakhs in the income tax return. However, his actual income is INR 42 lakhs and he uses this actual income to purchase a house worth INR 30 lakh. If questioned by the income tax department regarding the source of such expenditure, he will find it difficult to explain income of INR 22.5 lakhs while expenditure is INR 20 lakhs Conversely if the answer is no, then the presumptive taxation scheme becomes redundant since the Assessee is anyways required to compute his actual income and also maintain books of accounts to support such calculations which does not appear to be the intent of these provisions.

read more

Dear Sir. While adopting Ind AS, the company provided for Expected credit loss by adjusting from the retained earnings in the opening balance sheet as at 1st April, 2016. No claim for write off was claimed under Income Tax in the Income Tax Return. Now, in the current financial year, the company has recovered the entire amount from the company under the settlement arrived at with the company to whom advance was made. Now, if we show the amount recovered as Other Comprehensive Income , I feel that  then neither  it need to be first shown as income and then deduction. Some people feel that, the amount recovered should be shown in the main body of profit and loss statement and the amount shall be reduced from the taxable income. I seek your kind guidance in the matter. Regards. O.P. Saraswat

read more

Property is taken in the name of wife but cost borne by husband,the property is rented and proceeds credited to wife accounts….in whose hand will it be taxable….whether clubbing provisions will be applicable

read more

Company amortize lease premium paid for leasehold land every year in its books of account and got disallowed while computing the taxable income under the provision of Income tax act considering the same is a capital expenditure. However no adjustment has been made while computing book profit u/s 115JB of Income tax act. Accordingly book profit is lower to that extent. The AO added back the same. How to proceed, please guide.

read more

Penalty u/s 270A was initiated on addition of conveyeyance expense Say 5% for want of vouchers etc but mentioned in Assessment order as Mis reporting of income. Assessee filed form 68 u/s 270AA claim ing immunity from Penalty within a month of the order but as per section 270AA immunity is not available in Misreporting of Income.How to proceed . Pl Guide and refer some judgements.

read more

Dear Sir, My query is as follows: If a search on a person took place on 30.09.2015 Return for assessment year 2014-15 filed on 30.09.2015 Last date for issuing notice under section 143(2) is 30.09.2015 Whether we can say, proceeding  for A.Y. 2014-15 is unabated proceedings or not Whether the plea that addition can be made only on the basis of search document can be taken for A.Y. 2014-15    

read more

Notice U/s 143(2) issued by ITO wd 20(3)(5), who has no territorial jurisdiction over the assessee for AY 2014-15, actual jurisdiction lies with ITO Wd 19(3)(5), an objection to that effect was filed within 30 days of issue of notice. However ITO 20(3)(5) asked for details time to time and assessee provided whatever the ITO asked for and an order was passed U/s 143(3) with an addition of Rs. 1 cr by disallowing LTCG on shares considering it as bogus.  Assessment was completed without removing objection filed by the assessee for jurisdiction. The assessee is in CIT (A), CIT (A) asked for remand report. ITO’s response to remand report is reproduced as follows: As per the records, the assessee has E-filed her Return of Income on 31.07.2014 and the same is verified on the E-filing portal and it is seen that the jurisdiction mentioned in the E-return for A.Y 2014-15 was assessed in old ITO Ward-17(1)(3). The said return of Income was processed by CPC. Thereafter, on 29 /O5 /2015, CPC has transferred the rectification rights to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. i.e ITO 20(3)(5), Mumbai. The PAN of the assessee is with ITO Ward-17(1)(3), which has been restructured as ITO 2O(3)(5), Mumba. since 30.12.2014 The copies of the PAN jurisdiction History Details, Copy of acknowledgement of ITR for A.y 2014_15 and copy of WT Return for A.y 2014-15 is enclosed herewith for ready reference. It is very clearly seen from the records that the assessee has been regularly filing her Return of Incomes for both IT and WT, with ITO 2O(3)(5)), Mumbai, without placing any objection on record regarding the territorial jurisdiction or with regards to migration of PAN.  During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has not requested for migration of PAN on the basis of jurisdiction as per the residential address. The assessee had made timely submissions with regards to the scrutiny assessment proceedings with ITO 20(3)(5), Mumbai and the same was completed in accordance with the jurisdictional rights of the assessee being assessed with the ITO 20(3)(5),Mumbai.   Here would like to state that the address of the assessee in PAN record was changed in 2012, return also has new address from AY 13-14 onwards. Since the return was filed online, the asseessee has no option to choose designation of ITO. There afer the assessee has filed RTI application seeking answer that whether objection letter filed by the assessee is there on record or not. and if yes, any reply to the objection was given to the assessee. In response to RTI application, reply is received affirimg that objection letter is there on record and there is no reply was given by the ITO to the assessee. Sir, my query is that how strong is this stand based on jurisdiction of the ITO and without removing objection filed by the assessee, the AO has completed assessment. And what are are judicial pronouncement available on this whether favouring assessee or revenue, Kindly guide.  

read more

Sir, the IT deppt. had sent to the bank attachment notice of an assessee on february 2020. The assessee’s appeal is pending and he has not paid 20% of the demand. He has filed for saty of demand but no reply has been submitted. In the mean time,6 months have elapsed and no extention letter has been sent to the bank for attachment. Can the bank account be released based on expiry of 6 months?

read more

Dear Sir, One Charitable Trust with 12A and 80G registrations  would like to donate to another Charitable Trust 12A and 80G registrations. In the light of the new amendments, can this be done?.   If it can be done, any steps are precautions to be taken?

read more

Can a NGO sign a JV with Agency for implementing the project and receive funds directly from the donor company to the implementing Agencies…..

read more