Thank You
Thank you for your question. We will forward it to an expert in our panel. The experts opinion will be made available shortly. Please visit the main page after some time to read the answer to your question.
| MAT credit | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | The assessing officer denied the MAT (Minimum Alternate Tax) on the ground that the appellant has availed the benefit of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (VsV) and have permanently settled the dispute without considering the fact that the appellant has opted for VsV w.r.t the disputed income and the MAT credit as per return of income will not lapse as result of appellant opting for VsV. Kindly guide. |
| Issue of shares | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | The assessee is a private limited company. The share value of the company is Rs.100/- As per Balance sheet the share value is Rs.350/- Can the company issue shares to an investor at face value? Ifso what would be the income tax implication in the hands of the company as well as the Investor? |
| ITR of Closed Company | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | The Company has closed its business and applied to ROC for its closure. The Company received the Closure Order. Company submitted application to Income Tax for PAN surrender and its activation. However no reply received from them for more than 2 years. Is it mandatory to file Income Tax Return even after application for PAN Surrender. |
| Income Tax Return for closed Companies | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | The Company has received the closure notice from ROC after submission of all formalities for closure. After closure the company applied for surrender of PAN Card. Till now neither PAN has been deactivated nor any reply received from Department for surrender order. Should the closed company need to continue file IT Return even after the PAN Surrender since PAN has not been deactivated. |
| MSME and 43B payments | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | With effect from 1/4/2023, any sum payable by the assessee to Micro or Small enterprises beyond the time limit specified in section 15 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises development act, 2006 shall not be allowed as deduction. There are three questions with respect to said amendments Old Dues outstanding to MSME due to any reasons (before 1/4/2023) and not paid during the year and still outstanding as on balance sheet date. Will the such balances be required to added to income. Whether the micro or small enterprise which has obtained UDHAYM registration will only be counted or unregistered enterprises which statisfy the definition of Micro and Small enterprises shall also be eligible MSME for the purpose of section 43B As per MSME Act, only manufacturers or service providers are classified as enterprises but central govt had allowed the traders to get registration for UDHAYM vide office memorandum issued on 2/7/2021 but in O.M. it is specifically stated that benefit to retail and whole sale trader as MSME shall be restricted only for priority sector lending. The question here is whether Traders having UDHAYM registration will be classified as MSME for the purpose of Section 43B of income tax act. Thanks in advance. |
| Time limit of 143(3) assessment order for Assessment year 2018-19 | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | There was an extension of time limit for order as per section 143(3). What was the last date for this order |
| FEMALE HUF KARTA | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Can wife become karta in HUF in presence of her husband? |
| Addition on account of one time deposit for maintenance | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Assessee is promoter and Developers. During the course of its business accepted the one time maintenance from the unit purchaser and disclosed as deposit liability in the audited financial statement. on the completion of project the amount is handed over to society or apartment .This policy and method has been followed by the assessee since last 10 years and also accepted in the assessment U/SEc. 143(3) of the Act. Under the Service Tax Act as well as under GST Act this amount is accepted as deposit and no tax has been levied. Assessee submitted that it is not business receipts and assessee is just a custodian . Assessee also submitted that if One central Act like Service TAx and GST has accepted as it as deposit there is no reason for the AO to treat it as business receipts and therefore no addition be made, however the AO has not appreciated the submission and made the addition . Is the Action of the AO is justified and whether the contention of assesee is legally correct? pl guide |
| SEc. 68 and Cash deposit during demonetization by NBFC | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Assessee is NBFC registered under Co Act as well as RBI. During the period of demonetization assessee co accepts cash in old currency amounting to Rs 1410000/- from the borrowers up to 14.11.2016 and from 15.11.2016 till 31.12.2016 amounting to Rs. 2010000/-. Ao has made addition U/sec. 68 on the ground that NBFC are not permitted to accept currency in Old Notes from any one and therefore the amount is unexplained cash credit to be added U/sec. 68, eventhough assessee co has given complete details of the persons from whom amount is received towards repayment of loan taken from NBFC. Whether action of AO is justified ? Pl guide . |
| Prosecution proceedings for delay in payment of TDS | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Assessee is charitable trust having object of Education . During the year due to financial difficulties could not make the payment of TDS in time , however before receiving any notice from the department paid the TDS along with the interest . Now PCIT has issued SCN U/SEc. 276B/276BB of the Act. Assessee trust has submitted detailed reply stating the reasons for delay . however the PCIT has decided to initiate the prosecution proceedings . whether he is justified in law ? is there any remedy available ? whether the assessee should filed the WP before the HC? pl guide |