Ancestral Urban Agri. Land had been converted into NA Land in FY 2017-18 and ultimately sold in FY 2021-22. For the purpose of computing capital gains, while determining COA as on 01-04-2001, whose FMV is to be taken – i.e. applicable to Urban Agri. Land or NA Land? Also whether is it possible to take COA as on the date the Urban Agri. Land was converted to NA Land? Thanks.

read more

During the course of search/ Survey action some incriminating documents found which indicates assessee has received on money in cash in excess of Rs. 2lakh  from flat purchasers. He surrender the same and paid the taxes. Whether penalty U/Sec. 271D can be levied on this on money taxed as undisclosed income.

read more

PROVIDE ME ALL THE JUDGEMENTS THAT ARE IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO JURIDICTION

read more

ASSESSEE EXECUTED BANAKHAT (AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE LAND) FOR TOKEN CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10 LACS. NOW ORIGINAL OWNER IS SELLING LAND TO THID PARTY AND ASSESSEE RECEIVES RS. 30 LACS AS CONSIDERATION FOR SELLING/RELINQUISHING RIGHTS IN THE LAND BY CANCELLING ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE. WHETHER SUCH SUM RECEIVED FOR WITHDRAWING RIGHTS IN LAND WILL BE CHARGEABLE TO GST? IF YES, WHAT AMOUNT WILL BE TAXABLE – ONLY THE PROFIT MARGIN (RS. 20 LACS) OR ENTIRE CONSIDERATION AND AT WHAT RATE IT WILL BE TAXABLE?

read more

ASSEESSEE GST REGISTRATION CANCELLED VIDE CANCELLATION ORDER DATED 30/12/2019 U/S 29(2C) OF THE CGST ACT. ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPLIED FOR REVOCATION OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OR NOT FILED ANY APPEAL TILL DATE. RECENTLY ISSUED GST NOTIFICATION 34/2021 DATED 29/08/2021 EXTENDED TIME LIMIT FOR FILING REVOCATION TILL 30/09/2021 ONLY IN CASE WHERE DUE DATE FOR FILING REVOCATION OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION FALLS BETWEEN 01/03/2020 TO 31/02/2021. IN OUR CASE, THE DUE DATE TO FILE REVOCATION APPLICATION DOES NOT FALL IN GIVEN PERIOD. HENCE BENEFIT OF ABOVE NOTIFICATION NOT AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE. ALSO TIME LIMIT TO FILE APPEAL HAS EXPIRED. IN GIVEN SITUATION WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE TO ACTIVATE HIS GST REGISTRATION?

read more

Search & Sezure action u/s 132 was conducted on 19.06.2018. Assessments for the A.Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19 were completed u/s 153A on 14.08.20121. Assessment for the Assessment Year 2019-20 was completed u/s 143(3). The Government has extended date from time to time to complete the assessment u/s 143(3). In the light of extended period what is last date to complete the assessment u/s 143(3) for AO for the Year 2019-20. Kinly inform about latest circular on the subject. It is also requested to please inform whether prior approval to select the case for scrutiny (part priod is searched period) is necessary.

read more

Sir, In one case, the CIT u/s 263 has set aside an assesssment u/s143(3) for a particular issue to be verfied by the assessing officer. However for the same assessment year, the assessing officer has re opened u/s 147 on another issue. Whether two proceedings  is possible for same  assesment year. How to proceed to  re opening notice, pl advice

read more

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