read more

Assessee is proprietor engaged in the business as  Gas Agency under Bharat Gas. He has received notice U/sec. 148 for AY. 2013-14 and 2014-15 after 31.03.2021. Assessee filed the Return of Income for both the years and asked for reasons for reopening and copy of proposal  sent for approval before higher authorities and approval granted and also.documents as well as information in possession of AO. AO has provided the issues in reason that assessee has deposited huge cash in Bank account .  Assessee has once again  asked for verbatim copy of reasons , copy of proposal  sent for approval before higher authorities and approval granted and also.documents as well as information in possession of AO. However AO has not provided the same. Meanwhile AO has issued Notice u/Sec. 143(2) and asked certain information. In response to said assessee has submitted that reopening is beyond period of limitation and submitted that considering the nature of business of distribution of LPG to retail customer , assessee has to accept the cash from  customer and provided entire bank statement along with explanation of each debit and credit entry in the bank statement alongwith audited financial statements. Assessee further submitted that cash Depsoits are out of sales proceeds and sales disclosed are more than cash Depsoits in bank. Therefore 148 proceeds based on huge cash deposit in banks is incorrect and with out considering the nature of business, thus with out  application of mind. Now in view of decision of Hon’be  SC has given notice U/Sec. 148A(b) along with information about cash deposit in Bank account and asked to submit response with in two weeks . Whether assessee can submit the reply which he has given earlier about explanation of cash Deposit in Bank. Can assessee raised issue of period of limitation ? Guide.

read more

Assessee is an individual and partner in partnership firm engaged in the business of advertising.  In the A.Y. 2008-09. Assessee received a amount of Rs. 1 cr against his right in the property,  which is liable for longterm capital gain. Assessee invested the amount of Rs. 1.25 cr for purchase of residential bungalow alongwith the land appertatnent their to by executing the Development Agreement and power of attorney  by paying full stamp duty and also taken the possession of the said property.  The assessee has not carried out any Development on said property and after holding for period of 42 months sold the said property as it is and offered the LTCL in A.Y. 2012-13, which is accepted U/sec. 143(1)(a) of the Act. Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the appellant made U/Sec.54F on following grounds 1. Assessee has entered in to Development Agreement and the rights were granted to assessee for Development and sale of flats on the said property. The assessee has not purchase the property for getting deduction u/Sec.54F. 2. When the assessee sold the said property in the A.Y. 2012-13, he has to obtain the consent of original owner. Which means assessee was never the owner of the property and property  was not transfered to assessee. 3. Development Agreement was executed just to avail unreasonable deduction u/Sec. 54F of the Act. 4. Purchase of property is necessary condition for claiming deduction u/Sec. 54F and acquiring property through Development Agreement does not tantamount to purchase of property. 5. By executing  Development Agreement assessee do not became the owner of property. 6. Subsequent acceptance of Long term capital loss on sale of said property in A.Y.2012-13 does not mean assessee has complied with conditions of sec. 54F in A.Y. 2008-09. Is the action of AO is justified in Law.

read more

In the F.Y 2019-2020, assessee received gift of Rs. 1 crores from his grandfather by account payee cheque and supported by proper gift deed. Grandfather is assessed to tax regularly and had income of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the F.Y 2019-2020 which comprises of income from House Property and interest. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessing officer issued a show cause to the assessee asking him as to why the addition u/s 68 of the Act should not be made in respect of receipt of gift from the grandfather as grandfather had only income of Rs.5,00,000/-. Assessee submitted the affidavit of the grandfather giving the explanation that even though the income of Rs. 5,00,000/-, he had collected his deposits which he has given in the earlier years and given the gift out of said funds. Further, he has also submitted the balance sheet for the preceding 3 years which indicates that his capital account is more than Rs. 1.5 crores in each of the said years. The AO issued summons to the grandfather, however, he did not appear before the AO. The AO therefore made an addition u/s 68 in hands of the individual amounting to Rs. 1 crores on the ground that grandfather does not have proper source and has not appeared before the AO. Is the action of AO legally justified?

read more

Assessee is a start up company and issued the shares to the investors at a premium of Rs. 200 per share. During the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y 2020-21, AO issued a show cause as to why share premium received by the assessee company should not be taxed in the hands of the company under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee company submitted a detailed reply,however the AO proceeded to make addition under Section 56(2)(viib) on the ground that the assessee company could not give proper justification for acceptance of the premium, without considering the fact that the share premium has been accepted on the basis of valuation report wherein, the DCF method for valuation has been adopted. Whether the action of the AO is legally correct?

read more

Assessee is individual and regularly doing investment in share. He has invested share of few co. He has purchase the shares of two co through authorised stock broker and paid the amount by account payee cheques .  After 4 years of holding the said shares He sold the shares again through authorise stock brokers and received money as per settlement of stock exchange. During the course of assessment proceedings , AO has given show cause as to why sale proceeds of shares should not be added U/Sec. 68 on the ground that the shares of these co are penny stock and the rise of share price is 4O0 times. The said co does not have Turnover or strong Financials.  And also show case as to why the  remaining unsold shares  on the same price   should not be taxes as unexplained investment. Assessee has given detailed reply, however AO has made addition U/Sec.68 the sale proceeds of shares and unsold shares on same price without giving any reference to any section. Whether AO is justified in doing so?

read more

Suppose I have ltcg of Rs 1.5 lakhs under section 112a. How to claim a deduction of Rs 1 lakh. In which schedule?

read more

IN THE CASE.. MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS 5000000/- FIFTY LACS FROM THE BUILDER AS SHE AGREED TO REDEVLOP THE PLOT WHICH STOOD IN HER NAME…THERE WAS NO SALE OF PLOT..ONLY PARTING OF TDR FSI..THAT TOO TO THE TUNE OF 25% AND THE REMAINING 75% WAS RETAINED BY HER…AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HER…THE THREE LEGAL HEIRS HAD TO EXECUTE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT..ITAT MUMBAI HAS GIVEN AT LEAST 10 JUDGEMENTS THAT SUCH INCOME IS NOT CAPITAL GAIN AS THERE IS NO SALE…INCOME TAX OFFICER DISAGREES..ADDED BACK AS SALE OF PLOT AND ADDED 1.14 CR IN THE CASE OF ONE LEGAL HEIR..IN THE CASE OF SECOND LEGAL HEIR ALSO 1/3 RD AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED AS CAPITAL GAINS INCOME…DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE SAME INCOME…WHAT SHOULD BE THE POSITION…NOW THE CASE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE FACELESS AUTHORITY OF APPEALS…WHAT DEFENCE SHOULD I TAKE…

read more

In a LLP partners capital is at Rs 10 lacs and reserves and surplus are of Rs 100 lacs. on dissolution of partnership, partners will get 110 lacs . whether 100 lacs received on dissolution is taxable in the hands of partner. note reserves and surplus created from share premium account , and stand as reserves in LLP on conversion from company to LLP

read more

Can AO file second appeal before ITAT  against order of CIT[A] 1] when his predecessor accepted in remand report that correct quantum of addition was below low tax effect & 2] and CIT [a] deleted addition on merits ?

read more