now what’s final rate of tds on videography & photography services

read more

Is immovable property gifted to a relative through a trust taxable or not, and is it payble by the donor? What if the trust has created a company on the immovable property. Will the income generated from the company be taxed as gift tax?

read more

Notice for AY 2010-11 dated 31.03.2017 was sent electronically at 01:02:38 hrs on 01/04/2017 and the one sent by post for which there’s no evidence/proof is brought on record as claimed to have been posted on 31/03/2017 was never delivered to the assessee and got returned with a remark “LEFT”. Sec. 148 has used the word “to serve” while sec. 149 has used the terminology of “to issue”. Whether issue and serve have different connotations as far as income tax law is concerned even though the judgement of the Supreme Court in DDA vs. H C Khurana speaks otherwise. Similarly the Allahabad High Court verdict in Daujee Abhushan Bhandar WP No. 28293/2021 speaks in favor of the assessee.

read more

As section 45(5A) talks of deferment of capital gains to the year in which Completion Certificate is issued, whether the analogy laid down by the hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Manjula J. Shah’s case (2016) 355 ITR 474 (Bom) should be  applicable . In case of section 45(5A), though the provision calls for deferment of tax from the date of actual transfer, still no such specific provision is provided to clarify how the period of holding is to be computed. In the scenario, Whether indexation is only up to the date of transfer or up to the date of issue of completion certificate. pl guide.

read more

Assessee is a Private limited co engaged in manufacturing of dairy products. In the year 2012-13, assessee co has received subsidy from the Govt of Maharashtra, in respect of investment in Plant at back ward area in the status of Mega Project under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007, (‘PSI’). As per the Eligibility Certificate, assessee co shall be entitled to: Electricity Duty exemption for the period of 7 years from the date of commencement of commercial production.   100% exemption from payment of stamp duty under relevant Government Resolution of Revenue and Forest Department.   Industrial Promotion Subsidy (`IPS’) equivalent to the lower of, but not exceeding 1NR 1181 million   100 percent of the eligible investment under the PSI made within       5years from the date of application i.e. 2 May 2009; or amount of net taxes payable by the Project under State Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (`VAT Act’) and Central Act in respect of sale of finished products eligible for incentives i.e. net tax paid after adjustment of set off or other credit available, within a period of 7 years. A.O. consider subsidy received as the revenue receipt. CIT (A) deleted the addition mainly on the ground that the impugned incentive scheme was primarily to encourage setting up of new industries or expansion of existing industrial units in backward areas and the subsidy given was directly dependent upon the new investments made in the backward area by relying up on following decisions: CIT vs Ponni Sugars and chemicals Ltd 174 taxmann 87 Reliance Industries Ltd (TM) 88 ITD 273 CIT vs Tripati Menthol Industries 35 taxmann.com 515 CIT vs Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309 and given the directions to AO to reduce amount of subsidy from the cost of acquisition / WDV of fixed assets in view of Explanation 10 to Sec.43(1)of the Act. Assessee as well as Department filed an appeal before the ITAT. Department has taken the stand that the relief given by CIT(A) is incorrect as CIT (A) has deleted the addition ignoring the fact that incentive was given only after start of commercial production and was linked with normal operational efficiencies. and the decision of Reliance Industries Ltd (TM) 88 ITD 273 is set aside by the HC and there is Delhi HC decision which is against the assessee and also relying up on the following decisions a. LG electronics 134 Taxmann.com 329 b. Sahany still 228 ITR 253 c. Rajaram Maise products 119 Taxman 492 d.  Colourman Dyechem 377 ITR 411 Issues : Is the action of the department is legally justified? Whether still assessee can rely on the following decision in support of its claim that the subsidy received is a capital receipt. CIT vs Ponni Sugars and chemicals Ltd 174 taxmann 87 CIT vs Tripati Menthol Industries 35 taxmann.com 515 CIT vs Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309 In support of the contention that explanation 10 to 43(1) is not applicable to assessee company on the following grounds:- That the scheme of State Govt.  is for the encouragement of setting up of industrial project or expansion of existing industrial projects. that the maximum limit of the subsidy was restricted with reference to the value of fixed capital investment in land, building, plant & machinery but no part of the subsidy was specifically intended to subsidized the cost of the any fixed assets, therefore, it cannot be said that subsidy was to meet a portion of cost of asset. In order to invoke Explanation 10, it is necessary to show that the subsidy was directly or indirectly used for acquiring an asset. Explanation 10 and the proviso thereto do not dilute the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs P. J. Chemicals Ltd. (210 ITR 830) pl guide .

read more

will capital gains tax be levied on redeveloped flat if construction is delayed to 5 years by developer from date of surrender of tenancy rights for no fault of the assessee.? if so, how to avoid it? does the additional carpet area given by the developer free of cost in the redeveloped flat incur any kind of tax or stamp duty ?

read more

Assessee is an individual engaged in business of contract. In the year 2016-17 filed the ROI in time and claimed the TDS of Rs. 310000/-.  During the course of assessment proceedings AO find that there is difference in the receipts disclosed in the profit and loss account and in statement 26AS of Rs. 62 lakhs . Assessee has given explanation that out of Rs 62 lakhs , 59 lakhs are receipts which are accounted in the year 2017_18 . AO made addition of Rs 3 lakhs and assessed income . In the year 2021, AO give notice U/Sec. 154 asking as to why entire 62 lakhs should not be added as assessee has claim the TDS in the year 2016-17 and therefore addition is required , since assessee has not responded AO passed order u/Sec 154  by making further  addition of Rs. 59 lakhs . Assessee filed an appeal on the ground that AO is incorrect by adding 59 lakhs insteade he can disallow excess TDS . However  CIT(A) also agree  that what Assessee is claiming before CIT A is correct , however since assessee has not supported with any decision he confirmed the addition of Rs.59 lakhs. Issues: 1. Whether action of AO is correct ? 2. Whether CIT (A) is justified in Law ? 3. Whether assessee can take ground before ITAT that order passed by AO u/Sec. 154 is Bad in Law as this ground has not taken this ground . Pl guide

read more

Assessee is an individual and Hindu. He got married with another woman in the life time of first wife. He had two children from first wife and a daughter from second wife.  First wife expired and thereafter almost 25 years assessee and his second wife are living together as husband and wife and also accepted by all family and society. Assessee was also assessed to tax in the capacity of HUF also. The family members consisting of the children of first wife and the second wife and her daughter has decided to settle their disputes about the property of the individual and HUF of the assessee by way of family arrangement and full partition of HUF. Accordingly, executed the memorandum of family arrangement. As per said arrangement, the second wife and her daughter have received certain properties. AO has issued show cause that amounts are taxable in the hands of second wife and her daughter under Income Tax Act is it justified in law ?

read more

Assessee is an individual and is an illegitimate child. Assessee received certain movable and immovable properties after the death of his father, who dies with out will. AO has given the Show cause as to why these amounts is not taxable under Income Tax? Whether the SCN is legally valid? Whether the amount received by assessee is taxable because assessee is illegitimate child? Is there any judicial decision to support assessee, about non taxability of amount received by assessee.

read more

I am service tax practitioner . In the several service tax notices issued to our clients I observed that the same DIN is quoted for 2 assesses. What is the legal effect . When DIN is duplicated  can it be considered to be valid.

read more