What is the remedy for non payment of refunds under  VSVT , 2020 ? Is it liable to any compensatory interest ?

read more

1] can partition of HUF be unequal /only in favour of 1 member ? 2] Can  Karta’s wife claim rights in 2 HUF , viz, huf of  father and huf of  husband ? 3] IS order u/s 171  mandatory for partition of HUF ? 4] Is it possible to allot assets to coparceners individually  instead of huf of each coparceners ? 5] How many generations Any HUF can continue ?

read more

Even after amendments , if a retiring partners takes only capital balance in his account , what will be impact on taxation of firm/partner of reconstitution caused by retirement ? Will it amount to relinquishment of rights in FMV of properties to new partners at Zero value ?

read more

DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT ASSESSEE’S PREMISE (LET SAY ABC PVT LTD BEING A JEWELLER), CERTAIN INFORMATION WAS EXTRACTED FROM COMPUTER/HARDISK SEIZED WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED IN EXCEL FILE  – DETAILS OF OTHER PERSON (SAY XYZ), HIS ADDRESS, DATE OF CASH RECEIPT FROM XYZ FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELRY. IT WAS A EXCEL DOCUMENT AND DID NOT CONTAIN ANY SIGNATURE. 2. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE EXCEL FILE EXTRACTED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL PERTAINING TO OTHER PERSON (XYZ), ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153(C) WERE UNDERTAKEN OF XYZ. XYZ HAD CLEARLY DENIED SUCH INFORMATION AND TAKEN STAND THAT HE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY SUCH JEWELRY AND NOT PAID ANY SUM IN CASH TO ABC PVT LTD.  THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER STAND OR DOCUMENTARY PROOF TO PROVE HE HAS NOT PURCHASED SUCH JEWELRY. 3. THE ITO HAS REJECTED THE GROUND AND MADE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HANDS OF XYZ. 4. IS ACTION OF ITO JUSTIFIED. WHAT STAND OR JUDGEMENTS ARE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE FOR FILING APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESMENT ORDER.

read more

In case of search conducted after 01.04.2021, whether procedure prescribed u/s 148A is to be followed for the preceding 10 A.Y from the end of the previous year in which search took place. Whether assessee can ask for the reasons for re-opening and copy of approval of the prescribed authority? Whether assessee can the notice on the ground that before issuing notices u/s 148A, AO must fulfil the condition as prescribed in section 149(1)(b) of the Act?

read more

Survey u/s 133A took place at the premises of builder on 19.03.2019, wherein a diary containing details of on-money received by the said builder was found. On the basis of noting on the said diary, the assessments were completed in the hands of the builder for A.Y 2013-14 to A.Y 2017-18, wherein the additions about the on-money were made. The additions made by the AO were confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. AO relying upon an explanation 1(v) to section 148,  has issued notice u/s 148A to the purchasers of the flats/shops from the builder on the ground that the order of the ITAT is an information within the meaning of Section 148. Can the purchasers of the flats/shops object the notice issued u/s 148A relying upon first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act? or is there any other argument which they can contest?

read more

Assessee is a developer and builder. Search took place on 10.08.2021 and noting about receipt of unrecorded sale consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- for A.Y 2018-19, Rs.15,00,000/- for A.Y 2017-18 and Rs.75,00,000/- for A.Y 2016-17 was found on the loose paper. AO issued notice u/s 148A on 19.03.2022 for all these three years giving time to respond within 7 days. The assessee requested for extension of time and the AO has given time upto 31.03.2022. The assessee has submitted a detailed reply and after considering the said reply AO passed order u/s 148A(d) on 07.04.2022 and the notice u/s 148 was issued on the same day. Can assessee challenge that these notices are time barred for all the three A.Y’s ?

read more

a) Notice u/s 148A(b) is issued giving only four days time to respond. Can this notice be challenged directly in Writ before High Court? b) Assuming that assessee has filed response within 4 days without raising an objection about getting less than 7 days to respond, whether this notice still can be challenged before High Court by filing Writ Petition ? c) An order u/s 148A(d) of the Act is passed after one month from the end of the month in which time allowed to furnish reply as per clause (b) expired. Is this order is legal and valid? d) Notice u/s 148A(b) is only uploaded on a portal without real time alert sent on email or mobile. Whether this will amount to service of notice? e)Notice u/s 148A(b) is uploaded on a portal and sent on email or mobile. However, the said mail has landed in spam folder. Whether this will amount to service of notice? f)Notice u/s 148A(b) is uploaded on a portal. However, in absence of email, physical notice was served on the last known address of the assessee which is no more in use by the assessee. Whether this will amount to service of notice? g) Notice u/s 148A(b) is uploaded on a portal in time but the same was received through e-mail by the assessee after limitation period. Whether this will amount to service of notice? h) Order u/s 148A(d) is uploaded within one month from the end of the extended time allowed u/s 148A(b). However, the same was served by an email after the end of the month. Whether this will amount to service of notice? i) Real time alert is received on 31.03.2022 by way of an SMS by the assessee, however, income tax portal did not have any notice even on 01.04.2022 (Screenshots available). Later on, on 07.04.2022, income tax portal displayed this notice as having been uploaded on 31.03.2022 Whether this will amount to service of notice?

read more

Assessee is a partnership firm, which filed its return of income for A.Y 2015-16 on due date. The said return was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) was completed accepting the returned income. On the basis of information available for the past years where 25% of vehicle expenses were disallowed on account of personal nature.  In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) for A.Y 2015-16, no such disallowance was made. Based on this information, AO re-opened the concluded proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 relying upon provisions of section 148 and 149(1)(b) of the Act. Assessee is of the view that such re-opening is bad in law as it is prohibited under first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act and the issue cannot be treated as information u/s 148 of the Act and also on the ground that it is clear cut change of opinion. Please Guide.

read more

we have filed form 1 & 2 application for DTVSV on 21-12-2020 for A.Y.2018-19, on 22-12-2020 form 3 is issued by department and payment was made accordingly and form 4 was filed on 04-01-2021 but till than form 5 was not issued by the department. many grievance were also filed but no response received from department. when we try to get response form department we come to know that there is some technical error in the system and advised us to file form 4 again but even that the issue remain unsolved.

read more