The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate dealings as well as in real estate consultancy. Assessee is also a partner in various partnership firms from which he derives exempt income and also has agricultural income. During the year  assesseehad entered into Sathekhat with land owner  for purchase of land on 04.07.2015 amounting to Rs. 1,85,00,000/- and paid Rs. 1.00 crores against the said “Sathekhat” and balance amount of Rs. 85.00 lakhs to be paid at the time of execution of the registered agreement for sale of land by the land owners in the name of the assessee and when the name of the assessee is recorded on 7/12 extract of the property. Although the stamp duty value of the said property is Rs. 6,80,37,200/-, the appellant agreed to purchase this property for Rs. 1,85,00,000/-, since there is litigation in the said property which is also clearly mentioned at para 7 on page 7 of the Sathekhat .  Meanwhile another person  came to know about this litigated property and he approached the assessee and agreed to purchase the said property by executing MOU  with the assessee. The Ld AO has made the addition in the hands of assesee on the ground that  that provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) get attracted in the case of assessee and as per the said provision, difference between market value of land at circle rate and actual consideration, which comes to Rs. 4,95,37,200/- is income of assessee, within the meaning of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, and accordingly the Ld AO made an addition amounting of Rs. 4,95,37,200/- to the total income of assessee, under the head Income from Other Source. Whether action of the AO is correct since the there is litigation in the property . pl guide

read more

A house is sold to spouse under registered deed below SDV ,remaining sum is shown as unregistered but signed gift deed . Is this a valid arrangement ? Can this gift deed be rejected as invalid ?            

read more

when registration of a political party is cancelled  after survey/search, whether donor will lose deduction of the sums donated before that date ? Whether old case laws will apply or not ?        

read more

I SOLD THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHICH I INHERITED FROM MY PARENTS AND EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. I WANT TO INVEST THE CONSIDERATION ON PURCHASE OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF MY MARRIED DAUGHTER. WHETHER I CAN CLAIM EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR IS IT NECESSARY THAT I MUST PURCHASE IN MY NAME. SECONDLY CAN I PURCHASE JOINTLY IN MY NAME WITH THE NAME OF MY MARRIED DAUGHTER. PLEASE SUPPORT YOU ANSWER WITH PROVISIONS OF I T ACT AND CASE LAW, IF ANY, ON THE SUBJECT

read more

1.The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate dealings as well as in real estate consultancy. Assessee is also a partner in various partnership firms from which he derives exempt income and also has agricultural income. 2.The assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 01.02.2017 disclosing total income at Rs. Nil. Assessee was holding land  as capital asset  jointly with his wife and son. purchase in the year 1990. 3.. During  the  year  under consideration, the assessee had entered into development agreement with Developer , for development of the said land vide registered agreement . In consideration of land given for development, Developer  agreed to give the appellant constructed area in the proposed scheme to be undertaken on the said piece of land but due to some internal problems, few of the terms of the said development agreement were not complied and thus possession of the said land was not given to developer . As the possession of land was not given to the developer, transfer had not taken place within the meaning of Sec. 45 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is offered to tax.  as on today also the possesseion of the plot is with the assessee and no development on the same has been carried out. 4.The Ld AO has made the addition mainly on the ground that assessee is liable for capital gain under section 45(1) of the Act in view of development agreement executed between assessee and developer instead of Joint Development and accordingly considering the assessee’s share as 1/3rd, made addition of as Long-Term Capital Gain. Is AO is correct. Pl guide

read more

Assets found from lockers in name of 1] relatives 2] employee 3] outsiders are these Benami property ?    

read more

Assessee is individual and offered the income U/Sec.44AD for A.Y. 2015-16. The case of selected for limited  scrutiny on the ground that large cash deposits in the Bank. Assessee has given the explanation that these are out of cash sales offered in the Gross sales considered for the computing the income U/Sec. 44AD of the Act. After due verification of evidences submitted and explanation given by the assessee, assessement order was passed  22.12.2017 U/Sec 143(3) of the Act. A notice U/Sec. 148A(b) of the Act for A.Y 2015-16 sent as per the directions of The Hon’ble Supreme court on  04.05.2022  (2022 SCC Online SC 543) in the case of Union of India  V.  Ashish Agarwal. Assessee has given detailed reply to the same , however the AO has not appreciated the same and passed order U/sec. 148A(d) along with Notice U/Sec. 148 with out dealing the objection about change of opinion and non availability of any new tangible material as the assessment order was passed U/Sec. 143(3) , considering the same reason of large cash deposits. Is action of the AO is legally justified ? whether stand of No new tangible material and Change of opinion is still valid ground what is option available to assessee, pl guide  

read more

The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate dealings as well as in real estate consultancy. Assessee is also a partner in various partnership firms from which he derives exempt income and also has agricultural income. The assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 disclosing total income at Rs. Nil. Assessee was holding land jointly with his wife, son and daughter During the  year  under consideration, the assessee and other family members had entered into development agreement with M/s. ABC, developers for development of the said land vide registered development agreement. In consideration of land given for development, M/s. ABC agreed to give the assessee and his family members constructed area in the proposed scheme to be undertaken on the said piece of land but due to some internal problems, few of the terms of the said development agreement were not complied and thus possession of the said land was not given to M/s. ABC. As the possession of land was not given to the developer, transfer had not taken place within the meaning of Sec. 45 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is offered to tax. The Ld AO has made the addition mainly on the ground that assessee is liable for capital gain under section 45(1) of the Act in view of development agreement executed between assessee and M/s. ABC and accordingly considering the assessee’s share as 1/3rd, made addition in the hands of the assessee as Long-Term Capital Gain. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO, relying upon the assessment order on the following ground: a.Assessee has entered into registered development agreement instead of Joint Venture Agreement. b.Development agreement is in respect of capital asset. c.Assessee is liable for capital gain U/sec. 45 Contention of the Assessee : a.Possession of the said land was not given to M/s. ABC. b.Capital gain is attracted on the receipts of constructed aera. c.No development is carried on the plot till today also and no approval for the construction of the building is obtained .Developers is also confirm the same and therefore there is no “transfer” u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. As the possession of land was not given to the developer, transfer had not taken place within the meaning of Sec. 45 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is offered to tax. Transfer is not complete on mere registration of agreement for sale of property. In the case of the assessee, it had not parted with the possession of the property in question and hence the transfer is not completed so as to treat the act of registration of development agreement eligible for Capital Gains. Issues :–   Whether assessee’s stand is correct? Is any other arguments which can be taken. Any decisions to support assessee’s stand .  

read more

The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate dealings as well as in real estate consultancy. Assessee is also a partner in various partnership firms from which he derives exempt income and also has agricultural income. The assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 01.02.2017 disclosing total income at Rs. Nil. During the year under review appellant had entered into Sathekhat with land owner for purchase of land for a consideration of Rs.. 1,85,00,000/-. Appellant have paid Rs. 1.00 crores against the said “Sathekhat” and balance amount of Rs. 85.00 lakhs to be paid at the time of execution of the registered agreement for sale of land by the land owners in the name of the assessee and when the name of the assessee is recorded on 7/12 extract of the property. Although the stamp duty value of the said property is Rs. 6,80,00,000 /-, the appellant agreed to purchase this property for Rs. 1,85,00,000/-, since there is litigation in the said property which is also clearly mentioned at para 7 on page 7 of the Sathekhat Meanwhile Mr. X came to know about this litigated property and he approached the appellant and agreed to purchase the said property by executing MOU with the assessee. The Ld AO has made the addition mainly on the ground that provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) get attracted in the case of assessee and as per the said provision, difference between market value of land at circle rate and actual consideration, which comes to Rs. 4,95,00,000/- is income of assessee, within the meaning of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, and accordingly the Ld AO made an addition amounting of Rs. 4,95,00,000/- to the total income of assessee, under the head Income from Other Source. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO, relying upon the assessment order on the ground that the difference in market value/circle rate and the actual consideration shall become taxable in the hands of the appellant. Contention:   The assessee has executed the agreement to sale with land owners and therefore immovable property has not been purchased by the appellant and thus the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable. As the said provision is applicable to individual and HUF if he/she receives any immovable property for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. An agreement to sale is an agreement to sell the property in future. This agreement specifies the terms and conditions under which the property in question will be transferred in future. While making the addition the reliance was place upon the market value indicated by the stamp duty authorities as realistic valuation stated on the Sathekhat and the Ld AO as well as CIT(A) failed to appreciate that:   The valuation by the Stamp Authority is based on the circle rates.These circle rates adopt uniform rate of property for the entire locality, which inherently disregard the peculiar features of a particular property. In the case of the appellant the ld AO has made the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) without referring it to the DVO.   Issues :– Whether assessee’s stand is correct? Is any other arguments which can be taken. Any decisions to support assessee’s stand .

read more

FA disclosed in audit, TP report etc but not in ITR return what defence and any case law ? is it rs 10 lac per entry ?        

read more