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.
| Sec. 263 of the Act . | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Assessee is an individual and his assessment U/Sec. 143(3) was completed for A_Y. 2016-17. Later on it was reopened U/Sec 147 on the ground that claim of Interest paid and allowed as deudction U/Sec 56 and assessment was completed U/Sec. 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) Assessing at same income which was earlier accepted U/sec 143(3). Again Notice U/Sec. 263 was issued on the ground that claim of interest paid and allowed by the AO is incorrect and therefore order is erroneous and prejudicial to the int of revenue and without appreciation of submission passed the order U/sec. 263 holding order passed by the AO is incorrect and asked the AO to verify the issue of claim of Interest paid. Assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT before ITAT. However mean while again AO appreciated the submission and passed the order U/sec. 147.r.w.s.263 r.w.s.143(3) and accepted the claim of the assessee as legally correct and accepted the income as disclosed in the Return of income . Therefore assessee has withdrawn the appeal filed before ITAt against the order of the CIT passed U/Sec 263 on the ground that since the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee and now there is no grivience left. Now PCIT has one more time issued the Notice U/sec. 263 on the same ground that order passed by the AO . 147.r.w.s.263 r.w.s.143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interst of revenue as in the opinion of PCIT claim of Interest paid as deduction from Interest received is incorrect. Whether Notice U/Sec. 263 issued by PCIT is valid ? Can assessee file the writ before HC against the Notice issued by PCIT U/Sec. 263 of the Act as invalid ab initio ? Or should wait till passing of order U/Sec 263 ? Pl guide . |
| cash sales vs 269ST | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Can AO ask any details of sales in cash below limits u/s 269ST ? any case law |
| Sec153C of Income Tax Act. | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Search conducted U/Sec. 132 prior to June 2015 on Mr. X. On the basis of documents found during the course of search. Assessee Y received Notice U/Sec. 153C. In the Satisfaction Note, it is mentioned that certain documents seized during the course search at Mr. X , pertains to Mr. Y. The documents seized were slips of cash deposits in Bank. Assessee challenge the proceedings u/Sec 153C on the ground that satisfaction is incorrect as it mentioned documents pertains to Y and not Belonging to Y. Whether proceedings initiated U/Sec. 153 c are valid ? |
| section 11 of Enemy property act | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | what is the defence available to the person who is served with a notice u/s 11 of this Act ? Can he save the property so bought without any knowledge of the same being a enemy property? |
| Foreign ESPP – Summon U/S 131(1A) | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | I have received a summon from IT India referring to undisclosed foreign assets or interest. It does not specify any assets in specific but only assets of such nature that I have is ESPP stocks. I left the company that gave me ESPP stock in year 2020 and missed declare ESPP stock for AY 21-22. How do I reply to summon? Can I correct the ITR for FY 21-22 before replying? |
| 5oC | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | flat sold to relative below SDV , will 50C apply ? |
| Surchage on AOP | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | when AOP is taxed at MMRate, Surcharge Should Charge at Slab wise or flat 37% |
| 148A vs 148 | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | In the case of a search/related party’s case , notice issued u/s 148A instead of 148. Will AO get extension of time ? |
| 271AAD | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | whether this section apples to political donations made by donor to a party which has later confessed having refunded cash on pro rata basis ? whether this will attract BMA ? |
| Sec. 37 | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of machine tools. The A.O. had made an addition of Rs. 14.5 lakhs on account of disallowance of investments and irrecoverable loans and advances written off on the ground that the said sums are given to subsidiary of the assessee company as capital investment and loan and hence are capital in nature and neither the said amount were taken as part of income in any of the earlier years without appreciating the submissions given by the assessee that amount paid by the assessee co clearly in the nature of advances made in the course of carrying on the business, made with commercial necessity and business expediency and hence is allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act which is further substantiated by the fact of incurring of loss by the subsidiary co and In the light of the bad financial position of subsidiary co coupled with mounting ongoing cash losses and non- recoverability of the amounts, In support of above contention the assessee relied upon the following decisions a. Turner Morrison & Co.,Ltd., v. CIT 245 ITR 724 (Kol) b. CIT Vs. Amalgamation Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 188 (SC) c. ITC Ltd. v. JCIT 95 TTJ 1017 (Kol), d. DCIT v. Oman International Bank SAOG 100 ITD 285 (SB) (Mum), However AO relied up on the decision in the case of PCIT V Khyati Realtors Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann…com 461 and rejected the claim of the assessee. Whether the AO is correct ? |