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.
| 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 ? |
| under/mis- reporting | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | whether ratio of 280 Taxman 334 / 125 taxmann.com 253 (Panji)(FB) ( Bom) (HC) apply to 270A as well ? |
| Questions about order passed without and search conducted as a case of mistaken identity as detailed below | |
|---|---|
| Excerpt of query: | Dear Sir, Please give your view and guide us: Order for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2019-20 have been passed on 24.04.2021 after taking approval on 23.04.2021. On 24.04.2021, it was Saturday. DIN was intimated to the assessee on 31.05.2021 mentioning in the letter that order has been passed on 31.05.2021. The body of the assessment order does not contain DIN. As per circular no.19 dated 14.08.2019, the maximum number of days for generating DIN is 15 days. The AO issued another letter dated 26.07.2021 mentioning that order has been passed on 24.04.2021 and generated another DIN for order passed u/s 153A. Whether the above order is valid as the body of the order does not mention DIN and DIN was generated on 31.05.2021, after 15 days which is in contravention of rules of circular no.19 dated 14.08.2019. Further, later on, two DIN has been created i.e. on 31.05.2021 and 26.07.2021? Assessee order for A.Y. 2009-10 was passed on 25.06.2021 after taking approval on the same date and DIN was generated on 25.06.2021. Whether the above order for A.Y. 2009-10 can be held valid as approval has been taken on the same date of generation of DIN? Summon u/s 131(1A) was issued on 05.02.2019 and search was also conducted on 05.02.2019. Panchnama was not drawn in the name of the assessee. Copy of search warrant was not provided to the assessee in spite of reputed request. Panchnama was in the name of third party instead of assessee. Whether the search conducted on 06.02.2019 are valid keeping in view the above facts mentioned in point no.3? With Regards, CA S.K. Goyal |