Dear All, I have one query: The assessment Unit of The Income Tax Department has passed order U/s 147 read with section 144 for the A.Y. 2018-19. While making assessment U/s 144, the credit of Tax deducted at Source (TDS) has not been given by the assessment unit. As a result, there is increase in income tax demand to the tune of TDS and thus interest U/s 234a is charged on total tax liability. How to apply for rectification of such order? Only Rectification of intimation U/s 143(1) can be applied for through Income Tax Portal. Appeal to CIT Appeals and Revision under Section U/s 234 are available but is there any other option so that the credit of TDS is given and the order is rectified?  

read more

The Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department has passed order U/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with Section 144B in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19 and the credit of Tax deducted at source (TDS) on Salary Income has not been given. As a result, Tax Payable has increased to the tune of TDS and thereby Interest U/s 234 A is charged on the total tax liability. One can go for appeal to CIT(Appeals) or apply for Revision U/s 264 but is rectification of the aforesaid order possible U/s 154.  

read more

Assessee is partnership firm engaged in business of real estate development. The assesse firm had appointed few contracteors to carry out construction of the project. In support of its claim for expenses , asssssee firm had submitted confirmations from all parties, giving details such as name, address, PAN and detailed account extract of all the parties and also submitted that all the payments were Made through normal banking channels.  Ao issued Notices U/Sec. 133(6) to 6 parties, out that only one party responded even though the Notice U/sec 133(6) were duly served. However while completing the assessment AO had disallowed the payments made to two parties amounting to Rs. 56 lakhs on the ground that these parties have not responded to Notice U/sec 133(6) and have not filed the their  Return of Income. Assessee has submitted that in the confirmation letter submitted by these parties mentioned that since their income was below taxable limit they have not filed return of income. Whether the action of the Ao is legally justified.

read more

The assessee is a company wherein in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y 2021-22, addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unaccounted cash loan repayments on the basis of noting on seize papers found during the course of search conducted in the year 2021-2022. The director of the company has accepted the above referred seize paper noting in his personal capacity. However, AO has made an addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- as undisclosed income in the hands of assessee company and similar addition has been made on the protective basis in the hands of the director of the company. The assessee company has received notice u/s 271E for alleged repayment of loans of Rs. 70,00,000/-. Issues : whether penalty U/Sec. 271E can be levied on the basis of noting on seized papers found during search.? Whether the action of the AO of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271E is justified in law even though there is no mention of such initiation in the assessment order. when addition of same amount is made as undisclosed income, whether again penalty U/Sec. 271E can be levied. Can assessee take a stand , provisions of sec. 269SS and 269T are not applicable for the unrecorded transactions found during the course of search action. Any other remedy available to the assessee. pl. guide

read more

Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel pipes. The books of accounts are duly audited U/Sec. 44AB of the Act. quantitative record of finished goods as well as raw material consumption is maintained . Stock register for production as During the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2020-21, Assessing officer has disallowed the purchases and made the addition to total income on following grounds 1. In respect of purchases of Rs. 1015000.00 from one supplier on the Ground that the assessee has not filed the Return of Income for the relevant year. 2. In respect of purchases of Rs. 635000.00 on the ground that assessee has not responded to Notice U/Sec.133(6) and party is not available on the address and has not filed the Return of Income.  Eventhough the Assessee has submitted that the said supplier has expired and also produced the copy of the death certificate as well as confirmation from widow that after the death of the supplier they have stop the business and submitted the copies of GST Returns filed for the relevant period. 1.Whether the addition made by the AO is legally justified ? 2. Are there any decisions to support the contention of the assessee that purchases should not been disallowed only on the ground that supplier has not filed the ROI/or not responded to Notice U/Sec.133(6) or summons U/Sec. 131 of the Act. pl guide.

read more

The Assessee wrongly quoted the TAN in her return for the financial year 2013-14.  Demand raised under sec 143-1 for the said financial year in Aug 2015.  Now only she notices the demand but eight years have already passed.  Now, she could not file any rectification or revision.  What is the way out?  Should she file the petition under sec 264?

read more

Dear Sir, Order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department for AY 2018-19 and a Demand of Rs. 12 Lakh raised, notice of demand u/s 156 issued. Assessee is a retired employee and did not file his return for AY 2018-19. The assessee could not response to any notices issued by the Department till date as he is diagnosed with Cancer and his consultant did not inform him of the notices. My query is whether apart from revision of order u/s 264 or appeal before CIT(A), any other options available so that he can submit his responses and file return under section 148. Thanks

read more

when indian co buys services  from AE abroad  there are no other transactions to compare AE has not sold services  to 3rd party except indian counterpart   which method will justify ALP ?

read more

To ADMN. Regret that my query posted on the Topic, a few days ago, has thus far remained to elicit  an eminent ANSWER  from your inhouse EXPERT; will you please have it attended ! To Add: As per my  information, in US and HK, – may be , in certain other countries as well, – unlike in India,  there is no taxation of ‘perquisite’ – hence no TDS, by employer-company in the year in which RSU is vested. That is, unlike in India , RSU  attracts tax liability (CGT) only on its ‘Sale ‘, in the year of sale  .

read more

Regarding the deduction available u/s 24b of Income Tax Act, Can a son who is the co-borrower of the loan taken for construction of house claim the deduction u/s 24(b). Please note that he is not the owner/co-owner but complete EMI is getting deducted from his bank savings account. His mother is the only owner of the property. Sec 24(b) applicable where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital: Please help on this issue. Thanks

read more