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.
| TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUTSIDE INDIA | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | For assessment year 2023-24, a resident assessee, an individual, has capital gains on sale of shares of companies registered in Singapore. All investments were made by him when he was in Singapore in Singapore Dollars in 2014. These shares were sold in financial year 2022-23 and proceeds were received in Singapore dollars in Singapore and were deposited in bank account in Singapore. Since for A Y 2023-24 he is a resident and ordinarily resident under Income tax Act, he is required to show capital gain/loss arising from the sale of those shares. Queries are (a) whether the gains/losses can be treated as long term? (b) Whether the benefit of indexation can be claimed and (c) whether losses arising therefrom can be set off against long term capital gains arising on sale of shares of companies registered in India? |
| VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED WITH SHORTER PERIOD | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | As per the amendment brought in by the Finance Act 2023 with effect from 1.4.2023 in Section 148 of the Income tax Act, notice for reassessment is required to be issued by the AO requiring the assessee to furnish within “a period of three months from the end of the month in which such notice is issued or such further period as may be allowed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of an application made in this regard by the assessee”. This means that the assessee is to be given not less than 3 months’ time to file return in response to Notice u/s. 148. However, the Department still continues to issue (even after 1.4.2023) notices u/s. 148 requiring the assessee to file the return of income within 30 days. How far such notices giving less time than that is prescribed by the law are valid? Whether reassessments completed in pursuance of such notices can be challenged as invalid? |
| block of asset | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | when second asset enters a block of asset, is it necessary that both should be put to use for claiming deprecation ? how far it contradicts basic criterion for claim of depreciation ? |
| mutuality | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Is mutuality a right or duty for any club formed u/s 8 of Companies act? can any club say that we don’t follow mutuality and simply doing business ? |
| Miscellaneous Application, Rectification of Mistake apparent from the record . | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Hi, can you please let us know the timelinmit by which assessee can file a MA before the ITAT? |
| What is the Surcharge Rate for AOP whose all members have income above taxable limits and shares of the beneficiaries are determinate | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Sir, i want to know the rate of surcharge applicable for AOP, whose all members have income above taxable limits and shares of the beneficiaries are determinate. The Taxable Income of the AOP is less than Rs 5 Crores for the AY 2022-23. All the members of AOP are Partnership Firms, their shares are determinate and all are having Income above the taxable limits. My Question is whether the applicable Surcharge will be 25% or 37% ? |
| Validity of notice u/s 148 | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Dear Sir, After Supreme Court judgment of Union of India vs. Ashish Aggarwal 439 ITR 1, assessee received notice u/s 148A(b), assessee filed reply and received order u/s 148A(d) alongwith notice u/s 148 for A.Y. 2013-14 on 22.07.2022. In the notice received u/s 148, four reasons were mentioned but none of them is ticked. As the notice does not specify the cause / reason in the notice, whether notice is valid or not. Copy of the notice is attached. Please clarify. Thanking You, Yours Sincerely, CA S.K. Goyal A.R. |
| Authority of State Tax Officer on matter related to CGST | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | A person is registered under GST Act falling under the jurisdiction of Central Tax Officer. Business of the registered person has been inspected u/s 67 (1) of the SGST Act by the State Tax Officer, the goods has been seized and the proceedings has been further initiated u/s 74. Is the action by State Tax Officer legal? Do the State Tax Officer have authority to inspect as well as initiate a proceeding in the matter of a registered person falling under the jurisdiction of Central tax Officer? |
| Addition on the basis of noting found in search with customer | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Assessee is pvt limited co engaged in business of manufacturing of engaged goods. Had supplied to a customer X . Search u/Sec. 132 carried out at X . During search digital in form of excel sheet was found n seized. On the basis of certain noting , CFO of X has agreed n given statement that X has pratice of recording 30% of material purchase from supplier in cash and not recorded in the books. On the basis of this admission CFo also stated that from assessee co X had effected transcation in cash of Rs. 3.5 Cr which is undisclosed. Accordingly during the course of assessment proceedings of Assessee co , on the basis of statement n material extracted from digital data n statement of CFo, Ao issued SCN asking assessee co why addition of 3.5 cr should not be made in the hands of assessee co u/sec. 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE as unrecorded sales. Is action of AO justified Pl guide , |
| Society redevelopment | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | In case of society redevelopment , Builder pays to society members hardship compensation, rent, corpus amount etc. Is builder liable to deduct TDS under section 194IC ? In society redevelopment agreement , if Stamp duty value is more then the the consideration receivable in kind the section 50D is attracted to society member. Similarly there would be any implication to Builder in such case under section 56(2)(10) |