is it taxable if purchase of sali land is below the stamp value u/s 56(2)x

read more

What should be the status under which ITR 5 needs to be filed in case of approved superannuation scheme? AOP or PDT?

read more

In the financial year 2021-22 assessee did trading business of cloth. His turnover is around Rs.2.50 lacs His expenses and receipts are total in cash. During the financial year he incurred a loss of Rs.30000/-. He maintains regular book of accounts and never opted Presumtitve Taxation . Is tax audit applicable in this case.

read more

Dear Sir, What if the spouse decides to put the sale consideration in Capital Gain Account Scheme and willing to purchase a residential property and don’t want to pay the tax Please do solve my issue ???..

read more

Assessee is a Private limited co engaged in manuf 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: a.Electricity Duty exemption for the period of 7 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. b.100% exemption from payment of stamp duty under relevant Government Resolution of Revenue and Forest Department. c.Industrial Promotion Subsidy (`IPS’) equivalent to the lower of, but not exceeding 1NR 1181 million: d.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. a. Is the action of the department is legally justified? b. 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 c. 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) Please Guide

read more

The assessee is engaged in plotting scheme wherein he provide common road, drainage, electricity connection and common clubhouse. The assessee sells plot of land with such above common amenity. Whether GST APPLICABLE ON SALE OF PLOT.

read more

Assessee is a  partnership concern and duly assessed under Income Tax Act. For A.Y 2013-14, assessee received notice u/s 148 on 20.05.2021. The assessee filed a Writ petition before High Court. In view of  the Supreme court decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal, the AO issued notice u/s 148A(b), the assessee has objected to the said issuance of notice and submitted that, “In the light of the amended law, section 149 provides the time limit for re-opening assessment u/s 147 of Income Tax Act 1961. The amended provision of section allows reopening the assessment for a period of 3 years from the end of relevant assessment year except for cases covered under clause (b) where the assessment could be reopened for a period of 10 years where the income escaping assessment is 50 lakhs or more. Further, attention is drawn to first proviso to the said section Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. Therefore, as per the said proviso, an assessment year i.e. 2013-14 prior to 01/04/2021 cannot be reopened, if notice u/s 148 could not be issued for such assessment year being beyond the time limit specified under provision of section 149(1)(b) of old law.” However, the assessee officer has passed the order u/s 148A(d) by observing that, proceedings u/s 148A of the Act is initiated in the case of assessee as per CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022(F.No.279/Misc./M-51/2022-ITJ) dated 11.05.2022. As per para 6.2 of CBDT Instruction No 1/2022: “AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16: Fresh notice u/s 148 can be issued in these cases, with the approval of the specified authority, only if the case fall under clause b of sub section 1 of section 149 as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 and reproduced in para 6.1 above. Specified Authority under section 151 of the new law in this case shall be the authority prescribed under clause (ii) of that section”. For AY 2013-14, the reopening of case is mandated provided the income escaping assessment represented in the form of asset is above Rs 50,00,000/-. In the facts of the assessee’s case, the issue involved is accommodation entries were taken which involves underlying cash transaction/cash in Bank for providing such accommodation entry of bogus purchases of more than Rs. 50,00,000/- from XYZ. Hence, the reopening of cases for A.Y. 2013-14 is on correct footing and same is not restricted. Issues: a) Whether the action of the AO is legally justified ? b) Whether the assessee can file Writ Petition against the order u/s 148A(d) on this ground?

read more

WPRT my recent query for EXPERTS’ answer , look up the UPDATE just posted drawing attention to certain recent developments ! May be, that provides a satisfactory answer to the intriguing point of concern posed- AGREE !

read more

Refer to the Article titled, – “Adjustment By Income Tax Department U/S 143(1)(a) In Respect Of Debatable Issue” (Posted on May 30, 2020 by editor Posted in Articles — 21 Comments ↓) EXTRACTS (: “DUE TO THE SETUP OF THE CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, ALL THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE PROCESSED THROUGH COMPUTER PROCESSING. NO MANUAL INTERVENTION IS DONE. Presently the assessees are getting notices from the income tax central processing center for adjustments under section 143(1)(a) of the Income tax Act. AS PER THE NOTICES ISSUED, EXPLANATIONS ARE CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR WHY ADJUSTMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN THEIR RETURNED INCOME.” Posted comment- “vswami says: July 16, 2022 at 8:43 am Based on own experience: For AY 2022-23, personal tax return (as a SSC of age 85 plus) filed has been favoured with a fast-sent INTIMATION; but Lo! raising a DEMAND for over Rs.40,000. THE REPULSIVE BUT AWESOME REASON INFERRED IS THAT CREDIT NOT BEEN ALLOWED DUE FOR TDS FROM BANK INTEREST, THOUGH DULY REPORTED /UPLOADED BY THE BANK IN 26AS ON THE ITD PORTAL, WITH NO MISMATCH FOUND. FOR THAT MATTER, THE ACK. RECEIVED FROM THE CPC FOR THE E-FILED RETURN, WITH CORRECTLY FILLED IN/ E-FILLED DATA SHOWS A NIL BALANCE OF TAX PAYABLE.” Differently Put: In the CPC Ack., automatically produced and received, TDS credit as auto- filled duly figured in/was allowed. As such, what is quite intriguing is as to why and how then in the INTIMATION that has not been likewise done; unless omitted to be done manually!? Will the Author(s) care/mind to enlighten!

read more

As per standard practice, the service tax/GST department called for information from mining department of state (gujarat) which in turned provided list of firms (quarries) in whose name royalty is paid. Accordingly the service tax/GST department issued SCN and passed order levying SERVICE TAX ON RCM on royalty paid as per list provided by mining department . In given case, department had issued SCN and passed order in the name of “A” quarry who had taken land on lease for quarry business from mining department of the state. But in actual “A” quarry had sub-leased the whole land to “B” quarry who had paid royalty directly to mining department and also claimed royalty expenditure. “A” quarry had neither paid any royalty nor claimed such royalty expense in books. Only because “A” quarry had originally leased land from mining department, there name was forwarded to service tax/GST department. What stand should be taken by “A” quarry to avoid service tax demand. I am aware that whether royalty is tax or not question is pending before 9 judge bench of SC. What other stand can be taken in given facts.

read more