A Y 2010-11 :  ASSESSEE PAID ADVANCE TAX OF RS.2 LAKHS, WHICH IS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS.  THE AO IN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) DENIED CREDIT FOR THE SAID PAYMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN FILED.  ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE AO’S ACTION IN NOT GIVING CREDIT FOR THE ADVANCE TAX PAYMENT.  PLEASE ADVISE THE COURSE TO ADOPT FOR GETTING CREDIT.  IS THERE ANY CIRCULAR OR JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE MATTER?

read more

The requirement of Section 24(b) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed, or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital is allowable.  The deduction can be claimed while computing the income from house property . On the facts  the income from house property is not offered in the hands of co -borrower . Facts also not clear whether the co -borrower is co -owner .  on the facts the assessee may not  be eligible to claim deduction. under section 24(b) of the Act. In  ITO v. Mamta Rajivkumar Agarwal (Smt.) (2022) 100 ITR 17 (SN)(Ahd.)(Trib.)  the Tribunal held that  for claiming deduction  under section 24(b), it is not necessary that the assessee should make the payment on the money borrowed by him for acquiring the housing loan. What is necessary is this that the money should have been borrowed by the assessee for the purchase of the property on which the interest is payable. There was no dispute that the interest-bearing fund had been used by the assessee for acquiring the house property. Thus, the provisions of section 24(b) of the Act had been duly complied with as the source of payment for the interest was known, i.e., the assessee’s husband. Accordingly, the assessee could not be denied the deduction of the interest under section 24(b) of the Act.          

read more

Search was condected in June ,2018.Assessment framed u/s 153 for the A.Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19 and 143(3) for the A.Y.2019-20. In first appeal CIT(A) has given some relief. Assessee filed appeal before the ITAT for the A.Y. 2019-20,2018-19 and 2017-18. The Hon’ble Tribunal declared the search as illegal and unjusified. What will be position for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18. In these Assessment Years assessee has not filed appeal to the ITAT. Whether these assessments u/s 153A will be treated as quashed. Kindly clear the legal position.

read more

Sir, the assessee is a non resident. Her ESOP shares were sold in the financial year 20-21. The tax is paid under the head capital gains (Short term). The quantum of taxable income is Rs.106 Lakhs. She has no other income in India in any of the subsequent years or earlier years. The short term tax rate is 15%. There is a view that AMT is applicable. For that year the AMT rate was 18.5%. Please clarify on the applicability of AMT.

read more

Appellant has given loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- in F.Y. 2008-09 to ABC through banking channels. Just before the debit of Rs. 30,00,000/- there is a credit in the bank A/c on account of repayment of loan received by the Appellant from his debtor which was given two years back through banking channels. Interest on the said amount and TDS thereon is reflected in Form 26AS and shown in ITR. On the basis of search in the case of ABC it was concluded by the Investigation wing that the loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- is accomodation entry. Notice u/s 148 was issued and reassessment was completed making addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee failed to prove three ingredients u/s 68 Query As regards reasssessment whether only on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of investigation wing reassessment proceedings are valid? Whether Notice u/s 148 instead of 153C in the case of third person for search prior to 01-04-2021 is valid? Whether addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the ground that the assessee failed to prove the three ingrediants of sec 68 in respect of repayment of loan received from the debtor is valid particularly in view of the fact that repayment was received from debtor?

read more

In case of an HUF of 3 persons with one as Karta and the other two as co-parceners, what happens to the HUF when the two co-parceners expire? Can the HUF continue? What is the tax treatment in such a case?

read more

A private limited company sells 26% of its shares to a person who purchases the solar power generated by the company. Can the shares be sold at face value, as the shares will be bought by the sellers on termination of the contract

read more

Assessee is a Trust running school, whose gross receipt falls under Rs. 5cr. For a.y. 23-24 the assessee trust filed it’s ITR u/s 139(4C) belatedly on 30.10.23 and claimed exemption u/s 10(23c)(iiiad). In Schedule IE-4, following details were filled : Annual gross receipt – 50L Amount applied for objective – 48L Balance accumulated – 2L In Part B2 of Part B – TI : exemption amount claimed u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) – 2L Now, the assessee has received adjustment notice u/s 143(1)(a)(ii), which says : “Income due to disallowance of exemption under clauses of Section 10 entered at Sl No. 3 of Schedule OS is less than the difference between “Gross receipts ” in Sl. No. 3 of Schedule IE-4 & exemption claimed in Part B2 of Part B – TI. Hence the amount mentioned at Sl. No. 1(e) ” Income due to disallowance of exemption under clauses of Section 10″ in Schedule OS is recomputed accordingly. Kindly suggest if the return filed by assessee is correct? Whether the exemption amount filled in Part B2 of Part B – TI Also what shall be done further in this case?

read more

Assessing officer has passed the Assessment order U/SEc, 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 5 Cr on account of unproved purchases after getting an approval form the Addl.CIT.  However, the approval granted by Additional CIT U/Sec.153D of the Act does not contain Document Identification Number (DIN) which according to the Assessee is in contravention to CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. Assessee has filed an appeal before CIT and has taken the ground that The assessment order passed U/Sec.144 of the Act is bad in law and void ab intio on ground that the approval granted by Additional CIT U/Sec.153D of the Act does not contain Document Identification Number (DIN) which is in contravention to CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. Whether assessee is correct and whether their any support for this contention of the assessee. Pl guide

read more

Assessee is developers of the real estate and is having unsold units in the projects developed by him. In respect of unsold units completion certificate from the competent authority   has been received in the year 2015-16. Assessing officer has made the addition on account of deemed rent in the hands of assessee in the A.Y. 2018-19 and he has relied upon the provisions of Sec. 23(5) which are applicable for 1.04.2018. Assessee has submitted that Sec. 23(5) is beneficial provision and applicable form 1.04.2018 and therefore two years moratorium period given in the SEc. 23(5) is applicable and therefore no addition can be made on account of deemed rental . Assessee relied upon the Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pegasus Properties P Ltd. 193 ITD 514 Whether AO action is legally justified. Pl guide

read more