Company has opted for “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020” and intends to pay the disputed tax under this scheme itself by 30.06.2021. However, the same could not be paid as on date. The Company had already filed the appeal to CIT(A). Company now intends to pay the taxes via said scheme in year 2024. Can company pay the said amount under the said scheme.

read more

Assessee is an individual and has some financial transaction with the director of the company in which search action U/Sec. 132 was conducted . In the search a hard disk was found where the noting about the financial transactions were made for the F.Y 2018-19  . Some entries on the name of the assessee were  also found. on the noting name of the firm in which assessee is partner is mentioned. Assessee has denied any transaction in cash with the company and also asked the documents and statement of persons on the basis of which the AO  has drawn the inference that the assessee has carried out transaction in cash. The nature of business of the assessee and the said company as well as directors are not at all related . Assessee has no business transaction with the director  except few transactions in the year 2016-17, which are through normal banking channel and disclosed in the regular books of accounts. the AO has issued the SCN on the ground that there are financial transaction of the assessee in the regular books of accounts in the earlier year and therefor the as noting in the seized papers as to why an addition should not be made as unexplained investment in the hands of the assesee . Assessee has denied the trascation and submitted that presumption U/Sec.132(4A)  is not on the assesse and even though the there are financial transcation in the regular books of accounts of the assessee with the director of the co where the search is conduced in the earlier year , does not mean the noting made against name of the firm in which the assessee is a partner  addition can be made in the hands of assessee and also asked for the full information which is found as well as entire staement of all concern persons and opportunity of cross examination. whether this stand of the assessee is correct? is there any judicial support . pl guide

read more

In the case of an assessee Hon’ble ITAT deleted the addition before the Judgment of Hon’ble SC in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. maintained by Ho’ble CIT(A) on account of payment of employees contribution to PF/ESI after due dates under the respective laws but before the due date of filing ITR. The aforesaid addition in dispute was made by CPC in Intimation u/s 143(1)(a). The department has filed M.A. within time limit before the  Hon’ble ITAT. Query: Q1. Since the appeal effect is less than 20 Lakhs whether the M.A. is maintainable? Q2. Since the addition in the above case was made by CPC in Intimation u/s 143(1)(a) while in the judgment of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. of Hon’ble SC in the case of assessment u/s 143(3). Whether the M.A. of the department is maintainable on merits?

read more

If flat is transfered through Gift Deed to non relative (ex to Registered Trust) , whether provisions of section 50C of Income tax act will be applicable to Doner?  Any case law / Citesation if any available please provide

read more

KINDLY ADVISE IF THE GST IS PAYABLE ON EDC AND IDC ACCOUNT IN  AN UNDER CONSTRUCTION BUILDING. IF SO, WHAT IS THE RATE OF GST PAYABLE AND FROM WHICH DATE THE GST IS APPLICABLE AS THE BUILDER IS DEMANDING THE GST AFTER GIVING THE POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT AND JUST BEFORE THE REGISTRY OF THE PROPERTY.

read more

Assessee is company engaged in business of manufacturing of poultry Equipments.  Inflated expenses in the regular books of account. The amount paid to person are assessed to Tax and also paid the tax on the income in their hands. During the search it is found that these expenses are inflated and the cash generated out of such expenses are used for procuring the businesss.  Assessee is submitted that inflated expenses in books be tax as non genuine expenses u/sec. 37 and difference between cash generated and use for paying securing business be added also not under sec. 69C as it has source from non genuine expenses in books and only difference in amount generated and paid be tax on the  . How ever AO has not appreciated this and made addition as under :, 1. disallowance of expense in respective year as inflated expense U/sec. 69 C 2. cash generated out of above and paid for procuring business is against the public policy as amounts are paid to employees of customer or middleman added entire amount u/sec 69C . 1. whether AO action is correct ? 2. Any decision in support of assessee’s contention of taxing real income ? please guide .  

read more

Blue Sea Investments LLP has 3 equal partners. It has made investment in property of INR 2 Cr and in a start ups of INR 3 Cr. One of the partners wishes to retire from the LLP from 1 Jan 2024 due to his old age and need funds for his day to day living / medical expenses. On 1 Jan 2024 the market value of property and value of investment in startups is INR 5 Cr and INR 9 Cr respectively. What would be the tax impact on the LLP as well as retiring partner on amount paid to retiring partner by the LLP (INR 1 + 1 = 2 towards property and INR 1 + 2 = 3 towards investment in startups). What would be the tax impact if continuing partners pay above amount to retiring partner instead of the LLP.

read more

Assessee is partnership firm engaged in the business of manuf of pickles and spices. During the course of search action with the Mr. X certain loose papers were found . on the basis of noting on the loose papers and the explanation given by Mr. X during post search enquires and his addmission before the his application before ITSC, Notice U/Sec.153C was issued . Assessee has given detailed response to all the Notices and denied having such transcation with the Mr. X . However A O has not appreciated the submission has made the addition of  1 cr as undisclosed Investment U/SEc. 69A and also made the reference to the Addl CIT for initiating the penalty proceedings U/SEc. 271D and 271E. Additional CIT has also levied penalty U/SEc. 271D and 271E on the basis of same noting . Whether Addition U/SEc. 69A  on the basis of Noting found in third person search and his admission before the ITSC and Levy Penalty U/Sec. 271D and 271E is justified in law ? what is remedy avaialble to the assessee? Pl guide.

read more

Assessee is firm engaged in the business of construction. On the basis of noting on the seized paper found during the course of search with Mr. X, and his admission before ITSC . Notice U/sec 153 C was issued and AO with approval of Addl CIT made the addition of the amount mentioned in the seized papers as undisclosed investment of loan in the hands of assessee u/sec 68 of the Act. Before completion of assessment proceedings Addl CIT has initiated Penalty proceedings u/sec 271D and also levied the penalty U/ 271D on reliance on the same papers . Whether the Action of AO and Addl CIT is justified in Law. assessee has also asked for effective  Cross examination, application of the X before ITSC and order of ITSC , however AO has denied the same as it is confidential and drawn the inference that assessee has avoided to take cross examination . pl guide

read more

Assessee is an individual and disclosed the jewellery of 10 kg in IDS 2016 and given the said Jewellery as Loan to Jewellers and also taken the interest in form of Gold on which TDS is also made by the jewellery firm. Whether it amounts to sale of the jewellery under Income Tax Act 1961. pl guide

read more