Mr.A booked a flat in FY 2010-11 and made the payment of booking amount through banking channels. Total consideration to be paid for the flat was Rs.68Lacs. The builder issued ‘Earnest Money Receipt’ for the same in FY 2010-11 .Subsequently the installments were paid from time to time by Mr.A.Some of the installments were also paid by his real brother Mr.B.The installments paid by Mr.B is also mentioned in the audited accounts maintained by him. In the sales customer ledger issued by the builder for FY 2010-11 to 2019-20 the name of Mr.B has also been mentioned as co-applicant along with customer name of Mr.A In the agreement for sale executed before the sub registrar Mumbai, on payment of stamp duty of registration the name of Mr.A & B as the allottees/purchasers are mentioned. The value taken by registrar for stamp duty is Rs.104Lacs. Valuation report form the registered valuer fully justifies the value of property in FY 2010-11 at Rs.68Lacs.The same is not in dispute. In limited scrutiny in the case of A & B for investment in immovable property after considering the above details & documents the AO of Mr.A accepted the returned income u/s 143(3). In the case of Mr.B on the basis of same information the AO has issued a show cause notice for proposed variation proposing to tax 50% of difference between 104Lacs and 68 Lacs i.e. Rs.18Lacs in the hands of the Mr.B as income from other sources. QUERY: whether on the grounds that “In the absence of any valid agreement entered between Mr.B & the builder and any payment made by Mr.B through banking channels at the time of agreement” the proposal of the AO in the case of Mr.B to tax Rs.18Lacs is justified? Whether different treatment be given to Mr.B regarding the aforesaid addition when in the case of Mr.A (the co-owner in the same property ) returned income has already been accepted ? Please give detailed reply along with case laws and oblige. Thanks and Regards

read more

https://itatonline.org/articles_new/law-on-levy-of-gst-on-services-provided-by-housing-societies-resident-welfare-associations-rwa-explained/?fbclid=IwAR0QFsBtxFNXAraIzZAfD5Yn9W6mgugt__hL7xHyOpusAU4943mcCTs4ToI https://gstindiapro.com/2021/05/04/mutuality-principle-bowring-institute-gets-aar-reprieve-on-gst/#:~:text=Mutuality%20principle%3A%20Bowring%20Institute%20gets%20AAR%20reprieve%20on,Authority%20for%20Advance%20Rulings%20giving%20a%20favourable%20order. Attention is invited to the last posted comment wrt the AAR in re Bowring case. The AAR has upheld the claim for exemption on the ground MUTUALITY, pending Notification by the central and state governments. In essence, the 2021Amendment of the GST law , that too with retro effect , is not in force till then. However , some high end housing associations who have  already been collecting GST without considering , rather in violation and blatantly ignoring, the host of precedents, have started making additional collections. Is that not highly objectionable and the governing committee should stop /prevented from doing so;  ?

read more

Stock broker is dealing in its own Ac in future & option of equity/currency/commodity/index through stock exchanges. Whether stock broker needs to revere the Common ITC on transaction on securities on above transaction of future & option? If yes then, how to calculate sale value of security in case of future transaction of equity & index? As per explanation value of security will be 1% of sale value of security. whether value of security is 1 % of notional sale value of securities or 1 % of net of difference between future buy & sale.? Further how to calculate value of security in case of index future transactions? Furthermore, how value exempted turnover in case of option transactions.? whether value of security will be 1 % of notional sale value of securities or 1 % of net of difference between option premium of buy & sale. Is there any change in the valuation mechanism in case of transaction in future option of currency or of commodity or of equity or of index?

read more

Assessee is an individual AND received gift of Rs.  10 lakhs in A. Y.  2020-21. ASSESSEE has claimed it is not taxable as it is received from step brother.  However AO is not accepting contention of appellant on the ground that step brother or sister is not covered in the definition of Relative under Income tax Act and therefore he has made an addition in the hands of assessee with mentioning any section.  Is action of AO is correct and justified in Law.  Whether assessee has case to fight in an appeal.  Pl guide

read more

I have mistakenly paid the amount in VSV Scheme in Minor Head – Self Assessment Tax (300) instead of Tax on Regular Assessment (400). What do I do now.

read more

Is it necessary to register Partition Deed of HUF if it does not own any immovable property?

read more

how many days can file application u/s 254 and how many days to file application of condonation delay

read more

One immovable property (flat)was purchased before 01/04/2017 for which all payments were made before 01/04/2017. allotment of the property as well as possession was given before 01/04/2017. However, due to some reasons the registration (purchase deed) was done after 01/04/2017. As we all know that section 56(2)(x) of the I.T Act came into effect from 01/04/2017 my question is that will provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the I.T Act will be attracted in this case?

read more

Dear Team, My building went in re-development in 2013 and the flat was given back to us in 2016 within 3 years. I received a letter from income tax under sec 148 that i need to pay tax on the construction cost which is around 35 lacs as per the stamp duty document. How would this be taxed as there is no real transaction ,it is just that i got my redeveloped flat back from the builder. Please guide on what should i reply to the department. Regards.

read more

To my questions ASKED, > “Answer given by Advocate Shashi Ashok Bekal The new tax regime DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPLY # to any assessee. Once the new regime is selected the assessee cannot go back to the old regime. FURTHER, IT IS VERY MUCH POSSIBLE THAT THE TAX LIABILITY COULD BE LESS IN THE OLD REGIME VIS-A-VIS THE NEW REGIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING DEDUCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT.  #” FONT (supplied) < ?!? #/## Me understand that the CPC System in place does not at all permit a taxpayer to automatically upload the completed applicable Form of Return, say ITR 1 , WITHOUT TICKING either one of the two slots- ‘YES’ or ‘NO’  under Part A , Item (A 20) , thereby answering the question, – ” Are you opting for new tax regime u/s 115BAC?”. Put differently,  if taxpayer is entitled and wants to claim any deduction  under CHAPTER VIA, he has no choice except to signify his opting  for either of the two, even if the tax liability as auto computed by the SYSTEM is not of advantage to him. In essence, to my understanding, it is to be impliedly admitted that, as urged for, the CPC System being deficient , requires to be plugged in with suitable correctives , so that the auto calculation of tax liability is in no case of disadvantage( or of  less  advantage to taxpayer !?  – Any Contrarian view does not seem to at all carry any conviction ?! Suggest to kindly go through once again, closely, the ATTACHMENT  for more clarity !

read more