My spouse and I had purchased a 1BHK flat measuring 355 sq ft in Mumbai in Feb 2024. Our building is now under redevelopment and we are entitled to get a flat of 472 sq ft. In the meanwhile, we had also opted to purchase an additional area of 23 sq ft, due to which we will be allotted a flat measuring 495 sq ft. Now our developer has scheduled the PAAA registration in Oct 2025 and we will also need to make the payment for purchase of extra 23 sq ft area along with the proportionate stamp duty charges thereof My query is that since we have purchased the flat in Feb 2024 and we will doing the PAAA registration in Oct 2025, will we be subject to short term capital gains because we are buying additional 23 sq ft area. Should we defer our PAAA registration until Feb 2026 so as to complete the holding period of 24 months and qualify for LTCG. Kindly note that we are not selling our flat to any other person. This PAAA registration of the flat is on account of the new flat that we will get instead of the old flat due to redevelopment.

read more

a firm providing placement and recruitment service and getting service fees from client after deployment of candidate, is it reportable under section 44AD or 44ADA

read more

All conditions satisfied e g distance, population etc no income from agricultural activity shown in return whether AO can treat thus as taxable ? any case law ?

read more

search on A  before 31-3-21——–153A incriminating materials  of B in this search-on A————–153C B supplied goods to C ————-whether 148 or 153C ?

read more

which are the latest cases on this post the ratio of  kanak Impex ?

read more

I had an old tax demand which I opted to settle under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas (DTVsV) scheme. A final order was issued in my favour confirming full and final settlement of the arrear. Problem: Even after the settlement order, the system has not given effect to it. The payments made under DTVsV were wrongly credited against the old arrear instead of being treated as settlement. Further interest was wrongly computed on this supposed “balance demand.” My recent refunds have been adjusted against this non-existent demand, even though the case was already closed. Current Situation: The portal still shows an outstanding demand. Refunds for the last year and this year were both adjusted against it. Despite filing a grievance, the issue is marked “resolved,” but no correction has been made in CPC’s records. My objection/request: The demand should be extinguished in CPC’s system as per the DTVsV settlement order. Refunds wrongly adjusted should be restored along with applicable interest. Has anyone faced a similar issue where CPC did not give effect to a DTVsV/VSV settlement? Should I file a rectification request online, approach my Jurisdictional AO directly, or escalate further? Is there a process to recover the refunds already adjusted once the demand is nullified?

read more

The maternal grand father acquired a commercial shop in 2010. he wants to gift this self acquired property to his grand son. can he do so, under what section.

read more

If a case is set aside by Cit under 263 and assessment is done consequently under 263 read with 143 Whether notice under section 143(2) is required to be given or not According to my view , it is not mandatory ?

read more

Case law of Bina Jain says possession is imp Case  law of  Vembu Vaidynathan says letter of allotment is enough how to reconcile both ?

read more

Sir, I have sale my residential flat on 30.8.25 at a price of Rs 43 lalhs. I have taken a loan of rs 25.5 lakhs for purchase that property. Instalment price including GST. I have not claimed any interest benefit as IT deduction as I have filed IT in new tax regime. My registration done on 22.6.22. Can I claim GST and interest as cost of flat at the time of long term capital gain calculation.

read more