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

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