Thank you for your question – Page 76

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.

Some of the queries asked by people are given below.

SERVICE TAX MANDATORY DEPOSIT FOR FILING APPEAL
Excerpt of query:	SERVICE TAX ORDER PASSED RAISING DEMAND OF A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS ALREADY DISOLVED AND CLOSED IN YEAR 2018 AND NOT HAVING ANY RUNNING BANK ACCOUNT. Q1 – CAN THE SERVICE TAX APPEAL BE FILED WITHOUT MANDATORY PRE-DEPOSIT OF 7.5% OF DISPUTED DEMAND Q2. – IF ONE OF THE PARTNERS PAYS 7.5% OF DEPOSIT UNDER SERVICE TAX REGISTRATION OF APPELLANT PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IF THE APPEAL SUCCEDS AND THE FIRM IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM REFUND – IN WHICH BANK ACCOUNT SUCH REFUND WILL BE ISSUED? Q3. CAN PARTNERSHIP FIRM/APPELLANT INSTRUCT THE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE REFUND OF PRE-DEPOSIT ON WIINING APPEAL IN NAME OF PARTNERS BANK ACCOUNT read more

SERVICE TAX MANDATORY DEPOSIT FOR FILING APPEAL

Excerpt of query:

SERVICE TAX ORDER PASSED RAISING DEMAND OF A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS ALREADY DISOLVED AND CLOSED IN YEAR 2018 AND NOT HAVING ANY RUNNING BANK ACCOUNT. Q1 – CAN THE SERVICE TAX APPEAL BE FILED WITHOUT MANDATORY PRE-DEPOSIT OF 7.5% OF DISPUTED DEMAND Q2. – IF ONE OF THE PARTNERS PAYS 7.5% OF DEPOSIT UNDER SERVICE TAX REGISTRATION OF APPELLANT PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IF THE APPEAL SUCCEDS AND THE FIRM IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM REFUND – IN WHICH BANK ACCOUNT SUCH REFUND WILL BE ISSUED? Q3. CAN PARTNERSHIP FIRM/APPELLANT INSTRUCT THE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE REFUND OF PRE-DEPOSIT ON WIINING APPEAL IN NAME OF PARTNERS BANK ACCOUNT

Notice u/s 148A(b), Limitation period
Excerpt of query:	Thanks for your response. Specially with reference to section 149(b) of the Finance Act 2021 “Only if the AO has in possession books of account or other document or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset, which has escaped assessment amount to or is likely to exceed fifty lakh rupee or more.” for the purpose of clause (b) of this sub-section asset shall include immovable property being land and building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposit in bank account. In our case Sale of share and corresponding exempted LTCG is not in the form of asset. Kindly advise. read more

Notice u/s 148A(b), Limitation period

Excerpt of query:

Thanks for your response. Specially with reference to section 149(b) of the Finance Act 2021 “Only if the AO has in possession books of account or other document or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset, which has escaped assessment amount to or is likely to exceed fifty lakh rupee or more.” for the purpose of clause (b) of this sub-section asset shall include immovable property being land and building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposit in bank account. In our case Sale of share and corresponding exempted LTCG is not in the form of asset. Kindly advise.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for alleged noncompliance of notices u/s 142(1) in assessment u/ s 147 r.w.144 and 144B
Excerpt of query:	Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for alleged noncompliance of notices u/s 142(1) in assessment u/ s 147 r.w.144 and 144B read more

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for alleged noncompliance of notices u/s 142(1) in assessment u/ s 147 r.w.144 and 144B

Excerpt of query:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for alleged noncompliance of notices u/s 142(1) in assessment u/ s 147 r.w.144 and 144B

Registration of HUF dissolution deed
Excerpt of query:	Kolkata based HUF having one land in Delhi. One person gets it with Mutual consent and HUF is dissolved. Now can we register this deed in Kolkata and on basis of this will the sub registrar in Delhi accept the land ownership transfer since old karta can’t travel. If we need any court order do we approach Delhi or Kolkata court. read more

Registration of HUF dissolution deed

Excerpt of query:

Kolkata based HUF having one land in Delhi. One person gets it with Mutual consent and HUF is dissolved. Now can we register this deed in Kolkata and on basis of this will the sub registrar in Delhi accept the land ownership transfer since old karta can’t travel. If we need any court order do we approach Delhi or Kolkata court.

Cash Deposit in Saving Bank A/c. Addition u/s 68 of IT Act
Excerpt of query:	Assessee was Purchasing kirana items in cash from local market to avail benefit of cash discount. He was supplying the same to retail kirana shopkeepers in remote places & was receiving payment in his SB A/c deposited in cash at respective places of purchasers. No books of A/c maintained. No purchase & sale bills are available. Saving bank statement clearly revels that – (i) Simultaneous deposits & withdrawals in bank A/c (ii)No capital expense. (iii) Increase in bank balance about Rs8000 (iv) Peak credit about Rs.500000. During FY 10-11 on the basis of AIR information that assessee has deposited more than 10 Lac in SB A/c notice u/s 148 was issued. The said notice was not responded by the assessee due to family & medical problems. Order u/s 144 was passed making an addition of Rs 3900000 u/s 68 being the total cash deposits in SB A/c. The assessee in appeal before CIT(A). Plea before CIT- (i)For applying reasonable NP rate on sales of RS390000 (ii)Alternatively restricts the addition to peak credit. Kindly advice with case laws. read more

Cash Deposit in Saving Bank A/c. Addition u/s 68 of IT Act

Excerpt of query:

Assessee was Purchasing kirana items in cash from local market to avail benefit of cash discount. He was supplying the same to retail kirana shopkeepers in remote places & was receiving payment in his SB A/c deposited in cash at respective places of purchasers. No books of A/c maintained. No purchase & sale bills are available. Saving bank statement clearly revels that – (i) Simultaneous deposits & withdrawals in bank A/c (ii)No capital expense. (iii) Increase in bank balance about Rs8000 (iv) Peak credit about Rs.500000. During FY 10-11 on the basis of AIR information that assessee has deposited more than 10 Lac in SB A/c notice u/s 148 was issued. The said notice was not responded by the assessee due to family & medical problems. Order u/s 144 was passed making an addition of Rs 3900000 u/s 68 being the total cash deposits in SB A/c. The assessee in appeal before CIT(A). Plea before CIT- (i)For applying reasonable NP rate on sales of RS390000 (ii)Alternatively restricts the addition to peak credit. Kindly advice with case laws.

Notice u/s 148A(b)
Excerpt of query:	In the present case for AY 2016-17, notice u/s 148 dt. 31/3/21 received through email on 1/4/21. Reassessment order dt. 31/3/22 passed appeal filed before CIT (A) on 9/4/22. Again notice u/s 148A(b) issued on 2/6/22 (stated as issued, as per the direction of SC decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal) along with the information and material (12 pages missing/3 pages not legible) relied upon for such reopening. The above information is received by the AO from the INSIGHT PORTAL, as flagged by the system as HIGH RISK CRIU/VRU. Now the AO has issued order u/s 148A(d) & notice u/s 148, both dated 30/7/22 to file ROI. However, income which deemed to have escaped assessment as per AO has already been added to the income of the assessee by the reassessment order dated 31/3/22 and appeal is pending before CIT (A) against the reassessment order. Queries 1 Is the notice dated 31/3/21, where reassessment is already completed and appeal is pending before CIT (A), covered under compliance of SC order? 2 Can AO pass order u/s 148A(d) without providing the missing pages and non legible pages? 3 How to respond to new notice u/s 148 dt. 30/7/22? (where income is already added (bogus LTCG) & reassessed vide order dt. 31/3/22 & appeal is pending before CIT (A)). 4 Is the information received by AO from the INSIGHT PORTAL, as flagged by the system as HIGH RISK CRIU/VRU can fall under “information”? 5 Limitation period u/s 149 will be applicable as per Finance Act, 2021 or Finance Act 2022? Also search operation was conducted at third party and report from DDIT (Inv.), Unit – 3(3), Delhi dt. 9/6/21. No incriminating document / material found against assessee during the course of search and survey operation at third party. read more

Notice u/s 148A(b)

Excerpt of query:

In the present case for AY 2016-17, notice u/s 148 dt. 31/3/21 received through email on 1/4/21. Reassessment order dt. 31/3/22 passed appeal filed before CIT (A) on 9/4/22. Again notice u/s 148A(b) issued on 2/6/22 (stated as issued, as per the direction of SC decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal) along with the information and material (12 pages missing/3 pages not legible) relied upon for such reopening. The above information is received by the AO from the INSIGHT PORTAL, as flagged by the system as HIGH RISK CRIU/VRU. Now the AO has issued order u/s 148A(d) & notice u/s 148, both dated 30/7/22 to file ROI. However, income which deemed to have escaped assessment as per AO has already been added to the income of the assessee by the reassessment order dated 31/3/22 and appeal is pending before CIT (A) against the reassessment order. Queries 1 Is the notice dated 31/3/21, where reassessment is already completed and appeal is pending before CIT (A), covered under compliance of SC order? 2 Can AO pass order u/s 148A(d) without providing the missing pages and non legible pages? 3 How to respond to new notice u/s 148 dt. 30/7/22? (where income is already added (bogus LTCG) & reassessed vide order dt. 31/3/22 & appeal is pending before CIT (A)). 4 Is the information received by AO from the INSIGHT PORTAL, as flagged by the system as HIGH RISK CRIU/VRU can fall under “information”? 5 Limitation period u/s 149 will be applicable as per Finance Act, 2021 or Finance Act 2022? Also search operation was conducted at third party and report from DDIT (Inv.), Unit – 3(3), Delhi dt. 9/6/21. No incriminating document / material found against assessee during the course of search and survey operation at third party.

CPC System – Is there not a deficiency in the System in applying / auto calculation of tax chargeable under the old and new tax regime!?
Excerpt of query:	For AY 2021-22 Gross Total Income (Per Tax Return filed) more than Rs 15,00,000 Deduction claimed under Chap. VIA (80TTB + 80G) Rs 60000 Old RATE auto applied by CPC because of such claim. If new rate were to applied, then the tax charged by CPC is far in excess. Is that justified/warranted ? For my viewpoint> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sec-80-ttb-act-surrounding-myth-venkataraman-swaminathan/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/venkataraman-swaminathan-8a9b9575_share-tax-activity-6964086386643648513-rKJF/?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web In short, in my quite arguable view/firm conviction, based on -COMMON SENSE, PRINCIPLES OF – EQUITY and GOOD CONSCIENCE , also based on PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION of the LAW, so long as the taxable income returned does not exceed the BREAK EVEN LEVEL (of chargeable income)#, despite deductions/exemptions claimed under Chapter VIA, the new tax regime should apply !? # That is the top most income level, computed either with or without CHAPTER VIA deductions/ exemptions, on which tax chargeable either as per the slab rates under the old tax regime or the new tax regime would work out to the same figure. read more

CPC System – Is there not a deficiency in the System in applying / auto calculation of tax chargeable under the old and new tax regime!?

Excerpt of query:

For AY 2021-22 Gross Total Income (Per Tax Return filed) more than Rs 15,00,000 Deduction claimed under Chap. VIA (80TTB + 80G) Rs 60000 Old RATE auto applied by CPC because of such claim. If new rate were to applied, then the tax charged by CPC is far in excess. Is that justified/warranted ? For my viewpoint> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sec-80-ttb-act-surrounding-myth-venkataraman-swaminathan/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/venkataraman-swaminathan-8a9b9575_share-tax-activity-6964086386643648513-rKJF/?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web In short, in my quite arguable view/firm conviction, based on -COMMON SENSE, PRINCIPLES OF – EQUITY and GOOD CONSCIENCE , also based on PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION of the LAW, so long as the taxable income returned does not exceed the BREAK EVEN LEVEL (of chargeable income)#, despite deductions/exemptions claimed under Chapter VIA, the new tax regime should apply !? # That is the top most income level, computed either with or without CHAPTER VIA deductions/ exemptions, on which tax chargeable either as per the slab rates under the old tax regime or the new tax regime would work out to the same figure.

APPELLATE
Excerpt of query:	Hello: I am representing myself in a civil case and have appealed a lower court’s decision to the NH Supreme Court. The reason that I am reaching out to you is to obtain a definition of a legal term as it would relate to my appeal. The NHSC has sent me concerning my case a terse legal term, That term is: “not argued”. Please explain the significance of that term in the appeal process, Thank you. Sincerely, Lance Costello read more

APPELLATE

Excerpt of query:

Hello: I am representing myself in a civil case and have appealed a lower court’s decision to the NH Supreme Court. The reason that I am reaching out to you is to obtain a definition of a legal term as it would relate to my appeal. The NHSC has sent me concerning my case a terse legal term, That term is: “not argued”. Please explain the significance of that term in the appeal process, Thank you. Sincerely, Lance Costello

Application of section 45(4)
Excerpt of query:	X is a partner in a firm along with other partners. Firm has some assets, properties etc. X has a debit balance in the firm. He leaves the firm Without giving or taking anything. Any tax implications for firm or partner?? The status of debit balance in the firm ?? read more

Application of section 45(4)

Excerpt of query:

X is a partner in a firm along with other partners. Firm has some assets, properties etc. X has a debit balance in the firm. He leaves the firm Without giving or taking anything. Any tax implications for firm or partner?? The status of debit balance in the firm ??

APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 9B AND 45(4)
Excerpt of query:	There is a partnership firm having partners F (father), S1 (Elder son) and S2 (Younger son) carrying a hotel business. Each partner is having an equal ratio in firm (i.e. 1/3 each). On 01/04/2021 Partner S1 retired from the firm and his balance in capital A/c is transferred to Unsecured Loan A/c. Neither the excess payment of cash is made nor any immovable property is transferred to retiring partner. Remaining partners (i.e. F and S2) are now sharing an equal ratio in the reconstituted Partnership Firm. Query: Whether the section 9B and 45(4) are applicable in the given case? read more

APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 9B AND 45(4)

Excerpt of query:

There is a partnership firm having partners F (father), S1 (Elder son) and S2 (Younger son) carrying a hotel business. Each partner is having an equal ratio in firm (i.e. 1/3 each). On 01/04/2021 Partner S1 retired from the firm and his balance in capital A/c is transferred to Unsecured Loan A/c. Neither the excess payment of cash is made nor any immovable property is transferred to retiring partner. Remaining partners (i.e. F and S2) are now sharing an equal ratio in the reconstituted Partnership Firm. Query: Whether the section 9B and 45(4) are applicable in the given case?

Latest Judgements

Latest Articles

Categories

Recent Posts

Meta