I would like to inform you that I had filed an application in Form-1 & Form-2 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 for A.Y. 2015-2016 on 30/12/2020. In this regard I had downloaded Form-3 on 28/01/2021 issued by PCIT reflecting a demand of Rs.34,56,196/- to be paid before 30/09/2021 without additional amount and demand of Rs.39,27,815/- to be paid before 31/10/2021 with an additional amount. Further I had made the tax payment of Rs.34,56,196/- on 27/08/2021 and filed Form-4 on 16/09/2021. After following up with the officer for non-issue of form-5, I was informed that revised Form-3 was issued on 31/03/2021 reflecting a demand of Rs.36,20,784/- to be paid before 30/09/2021 without additional amount and demand of Rs.41,08,862/- to be paid before 31/10/2021 with additional amount. As per the officer, I had made a short payment of Rs.1,64,588/- as per Form-3 issued on 31/03/2021 reflecting a demand of Rs.36,20,784/-. I was never informed about the revised Form-3 neither did I verified on the portal since I had complied with the Form-3 issued on 28/02/2021. I therefore have paid the difference amount of Rs.1,64,588/- on 15/02/2022 after meeting the assessing officer personally and filed the revised Form-4. Still I have not been issued Form-5 since the difference amount of Rs.1,64,588/- was paid on 15/02/2022 i.e after the due date. The assessing officer is stating that it is beyond his powers to issue Form-5 in the case of our client. Kindly advise as to what alternative/options do we have to represent before the AO/PCIT for issuance of Form-5.

read more

Assessee is an individual. During the course of search on the residential and business premises in the year 2011. Undisclosed jewellery was seized . The assessee has disclosed the same and paid taxes due . When assessment and appeals of group concerns and family members were completed , since 2016 assessee is pursuing the matter for release of jewellery. However no action is taken on the application made for release of jewellery.  In the year 2021, again search took place and again some jewellery was seized. Now PCIT is not releasing jewellery on the ground that there is liability going to be raised . Can assessee take  a stand that since there is no liability of the search conducted on any of the group concern or family members the retention of jewellery on the ground of future liability is incorrect . Is there any remedy to release the jewellery.

read more

1] If an owner of land/bldg is other than individual or huf , will JDA attract capital gain tax u/s 2[47] soon upon registering the same in the case where only area sharing is fixed as consideration ? If yes, what shall be its valuation ? Will it make any difference if huge refundable securities is paid to owner by co-developer, which is over and above are sharing ? 2] Will it make any difference, if JDA agreement is unregistered ? 3] Will section 50D come into play in both above cases ?

read more

Assessee is charitable trust having registration under Bombay Public Trust and U/Sec 12A of the Income Tax. The main object of the trust is of Educational activities. The trust has constructed a building with the support of corpus donations.  However could not commenced the Educational activities and therefore given the said property on rental basis to another trust having similar object. Issues : 1. How to offer income from rent for Tax ? Whether it is income from house property or Income by claiming exemption U/sec.. 11 of Income Tax Act. 2. How to maintained books of accounts of mercantile method or cash method .

read more

Assessee is individual and engaging in carrying the administration of funds of group. while doing so he accepts the funds from the group concerns and individuals on the interest rate of 12% p.a  and provide the funds  to the Group concerns and individuals who are in need of the funds and charged the interest @14% p.a. Assessee has also his own capital which he is utilizing  for this purpose only. Assessee has offered the net income as income from business and profession .There is no direct nexus between the funds borrowed and funds given to sister concerns. During the course of scrutiny assessment AO has given the show cause that since the assessee is not having valid license under Money Lending Act , he is not going to accept the net income as income from business and profession, but will tax the income of Interest received as Income from other sources and not going to allow the deduction for interest paid by the assessee from whom he has taken the advances. Assessee is offering the net interest under Income from business and profession past many years and his return of income were accepted U/sec. 143(1)(a) and in one year U/Sec.143(3) of the Act. whether the action of the AO is justified in law.

read more

Apropos of the Question and Answer @ https://itatonline.org/digest/qa/is-collection-of-gst-by-mc-of-housing-associations-not-highly-objectionable-hence-to-be-stopped/ STATES have the power to levy GST on ‘supply of goods’ ; whereas the CENTRE ‘s power  is restricted to levy tax only on ‘supply of services’ . As such, the 2020-21 GST Law Amendment, according to a view, rightly canvassed so, in so far as it imposes GST Levy on Clubs and Associations, by a deeming provision, cannot become effective  in any State unless and until there is an independent Notification issued by that State . Premised so, the point of grave doubt is, besides the applicable MUTUALITY PRINCIPLE ,- whether collection of GST by the MC of a housing complex is illegal if the concerned State has not issued a Notification as envisaged !?

read more

Assessee is private limited co , which is 100% subsidiary of listed Public Limited co. In the scrutiny proceedings for A.Y. 20-21, Assessing officer has show cause as to why the Share Premium received by the company in the financial year 2010-11 and 2012-13 and 2013-14 should not be added by invoking the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(viib) , since as per his interpretation the words used ” any previous year” in the section authorizes him to make such addition. Assessee submitted that these provisions are not applicable for the share premium received in the F,Y, 2010-11 and 12-13 and even for 2013-14 since the premium is received on the basis of Market value of shares as determined in a manner prescribe in the Act. However,  AO is proceeding to make an addition of entire share premium in the A.y. 20-21. whether the action of the AO is justified. pl guide

read more

Assessee firm M/S. ABC  is partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of goods. During the search with another co, it is found that purchases effected by the co from partnership firm are not supported by Movement of goods, and the E way bill and toll receipt, and therefore AO considered the same as bogus purchases. On this ground the AO has made addition U/Sec.68 by considering the sales as bogus. Is action of AO is justified in Law.

read more

उत्तर प्रदेश में निवास करने वाला अनुसुचित जाति का व्यक्ति अपनी भूमिधरी भूमि बिना अनुमति के विद्यालय को विक्रय करता है तो उस विक्रय विलेख पर धारा 157A UP ZA and LR act के प्रावधान लागू होंगे ? भूमि का क्रय जरिये उप प्रबंधक हुआ है जो कि अनुसूचित जाति का है| भूमि का क्रय दस वर्ष पूर्व हुआ है|विक्रय विलेख के संपादन के उपरान्त उपरोक्त भूमि को धारा 143 UP ZA and LR act के अन्तर्गत न्यालाय द्वारा अकृषक घोषित किया गया है| यदि उक्त विक्रय विलेख पर उपरोक्त कानून के प्राविधान लागू होते है तो उसका बचाव क्या है? उपरोक्त बचाव के सम्बन्ध में कोई केस लॉ प्रदान करने का कष्ट करें|

read more

Joint property bet. me and wife bought @32 lacs on December 2008. For Improvement spend about 8-10 lacs but no supporting bills as was done during 2009 over a period of one year. Now sold property @120 lacs on August 2022 and 10 lacs received separately by cheque towards fixtures and fillings. What will be the  capital gains??

read more