Order for A.Year 2004-05 was passed u/s 143(3) & deman created which was partially paid as we were in appeal,after CIT Appeals,Tribunal & High Court we got favourable order in our favour in 2012 & after writing & visiting department order u/s 262(3)/143 was passed on 2.7.2018 but refund was received on 27.10.2020 & later on received refund against interest on 18.8.2022 & after rectifications u/s 154 received refunds again on21.11.2023 I am asking interest u/s 244(1A) but department has paid interest @6% that too upto  2.7.2018 date of order passed u/s 262(3)/143,want clarification on same.

read more

Assessee is a developer and engaged in the business of developing of real estate project. He has calculated the GST liability on sale of  under construction flats as per agreement to sale with flat purchaser by taking deduction of 1/3 of the consideration . In the GST Audit , departments is denying the deduction for 1/3 for the land on the ground that there is no involvement of share  transfer of land in the agreement to sale and land is transferred only when the sale agreement is executed with the society . Is the interpretation of the GST audit department is correct ? What is remedy for the assessee co in this situation . Pl guide

read more

Let me know TDS Liability in case of Import Freight paid to foreign shipping company

read more

Sir, I had sent two letters worth Rs 22 + 22 = Rs 44 through post office on 30/01/2023 by registered post in which I had made online payment but the postal department employee said that the payment was not made and asked for cash payment. He took Rs 88 and also said that if the money has been deducted from your account then it will be returned within 24 hours. But after 24 hours the money did not come, so when I went to the post office to collect the remaining Rs 44, the said employee told me that he would return in 10 days. After 10 days when I went to take the money then he said that we do not know anything about this and we do not recognize you. We won’t give you any money. Then I complained to the post office. But no solution was found. I was charged Rs 88 instead of Rs 44. I continued to be harassed for almost a year. But I could not get my Rs 44 back. All I had in my mind was why I am double charged. Then when I asked for information about payment mode from RTI, I was told that the payment mode was cash. But there is a record of sending payment from my phone through Google Pay to the account of department of posts. Thousands of rupees were spent in my attempt to get 44 rupees. Everyone calls me an idiot. But I still feel pain that double the money was wrongly taken from me and I was defrauded. A lot of harassment happened to me. I have some questions in my mind whose answers I want to know. Please try to provide answers to my questions. I will be grateful to you.   Question: Can I go to court for Rs 44?   Question: Will I have to go to consumer court?   Question: Will I get the expenses incurred to get Rs 44 from the court? Question : Does my case fall under the category of fraud?

read more

whether exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) can claim against notice of section 148 for AY 2016-2017

read more

Dear sir, I have filed an objection before the DRP and there was a delay of 11 days and on which sole ground the DRP rejected the objection filed by me. Meanwhile, the AO has confirmed the draft Assessment Order. Now where appeal lies I mean before the CIT or the ITAT. Thanks.

read more

A partnership firm (firm) was incorporated on 20-02-2014 with four partners each contributed Rs.3375000/- and having 25% share in profit / losses. The nature of business of firm is to develop real estate and deal in sites. The firm purchased a plot of land for Rs.13200000/- on 12-05-2014. No business had commenced however some development on plot was done till 2024. There was no further sale or purchase of land. Between 2014 & 2022 two partners  retired and one new partner was inducted in the firm. The retiring partners were paid only their capital contribution of Rs.3375000/-. This amount was introduced as capital by the incoming partner. Value of land has increased , but it  was not revalued by the firm in the books at the time of reconstitution . Please advise applicability of section 9(B), 45(4) & 48(iii). Is it compulsory under the above provisions to revalue the land or would it be okay if the partners decided not to revalue the land at the time of reconstitution on the three occasions.

read more

I have a charitable trust registered under 12AA Can I utilise my fund to provide food to orphanage

read more

Assessee is promoter and builder and offering the income from business and profession by following percentage completion method , However while filling the Return of Income for A. Y. 2023-24 has claimed the entire TDS made by the flat purchasers against the income offered. CPC U/SEc. 143(1)(a) has disallowed such claim and allowed the proportionate TDS as per the Income offered in the return and raised the demand by adding  interest U/SEc. 234B of the Act 1. Whether this action of the CPC is justified under the Act and 2. any other remedy which assessee can  exercise in support of the credit of claim of full TDS, even though the percentage completion method is followed

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