AS A FREELANCE JOURNALIST, I GET A INCOME UNDER 194J FOR MY REPORTING / EDITING. I SHOW THIS INCOME UNDER 44AD OR 44ADA OR JUST UNDER ‘OTHER INCOME’ IN MY INCOME TAX RETURNS? FREELANCE JOURNALIST IS A PROFESSION BUT NOT COVERED BY 44AD OR 44ADA – NO MENTION OF THE TERM ‘JOUNARLIST’. PLEASE GIVE YOUR OPNION ON THIS. THANK YOU    

read more

Should not the deduction u/s Sec 80TTB for Rs. 50,000, being a standard deduction , same way as the standard deduction in respect of salary income,  be allowed to a SC/SSC irrespective of his opting for the old or new regime; especially if he claims no other ineligible deduction as specified ? NOTE: Refer the Poser raised with the CBDT/CPC , also vide Post on FB/ Linkedin, to which no response has been received so far.

read more

Assessee is an individual and partner in partnership firm engaged in the business of advertising. In the A.Y. 2008-09. Assessee has capital long term gain other than land and building amounting to Rs. 3.25 cr. Assessee has invested the entire amount for purchase of bungalow along with the land . The area of constructed bungalow is about 20000 sq.ft and area of land on which bungalow constructed   is 60000 sq.ft Assessee has executed registered   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. The issue is which assessee has invested the said amount for purchase of house U/Sec.54F he has paid the entire consideration for purchase of bungalow and land appurtenant there to. However instead of executing the Purchase deed he has executed the Development Agreement. AO  as well as CIT A has denied the claim only on the ground that since assessee has executed the development agreement, he not entitled for exemption U/SEc.54F. Even though department has accepted the LTCG on sale of same property after period of 3 years. Assessee is before the ITAT on the following grounds Sec. 54 F speaks about purchase of residential house  and investment of the amount  with in stipulated time The property which is purchase is constructed bungalow along with the land appurtenant there to. Possession of the property is with the assessee. all other conditions of  Sec.54F have been duly compiled Only  because the assessee has development agreement insteade of sale deed does not disentitled the assessee from claim U/Sec.54F assessee has not carried out any development on the said property assessee has sold the property as it is after 42 months and offer the LTCG in the relevant year and same has been accepted U/SEc.143(1)(a) can assessee take any other argument  or is there any judicial decision to support the case of the assessee. pl guide

read more

Dear Sir, Assessee received notice dated 20.05.2022 u/s 148A(b) in consequence to Hon’ble SC Order dated 04.05.2022. Assessee’s case relates to LTCG. The information mentioned in the notice addressed to the assessee is totally wrong 1. name of the company in which assessee did purchase and sell of shares as per AO is wrong. 2. Amount of shares purchased and sold is wrong. 3. Name of broker to whom assessee purchase and sale of shares is wrong. Assessee filed reply in response to notice u/s 148A(b) mentioning that information given by you is wrong. Now, the assessee approached the concerned AO for drop of proceedings of reopening as information are wrong. The AO said that as per him, the information is correct. Now, he says that assessee should provide correct information only then he can consider about dropping of reopening. My query is that after providing correct information whether he will issue another notice mentioning information given by us and can reopen or he can drop the proceedings on the basis of wrong information. Please guide us whether we should provide the correct information or not. An early response is highly appreciated. Thanking You.

read more

Assessee received order u/s 148A(d) of the Act within the time limit of 30 days from the date of reply given. However, in the said reply, the AO has not considered the detailed objections raised by the the assessee and also not provided all the information and documents relied upon as required by the decision of Hon’ble Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, tough it is mentioned that same has been provided to the assessee. In the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, the AO has stated that assessee’s request for copies of documents, statements and opportunity of cross examination of a person etc. will be considered during the assessment proceedings. He has also stated that during the search of person ‘X’, which has resulted in recovery of various ledgers / note books etc. pertaining to his bank account and on the analysis of those papers, indicate that assessee has given cash of Rs. 50,00,000/- to Mr. ‘X’ in the previous years. This indicates assessee was in possession of unexplained cash and which was advanced to Mr. X for further investment and assessee has neither submitted any relevant document to substantiate the claim. The order u/s 148A(d) is dated 28.06.2022 and notice u/s 148 is dated issued on 29.06.2022. In the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Ld AO has stated that he has following information in the case of the assessee: a) Information flaged by the Risk Management strategy formulated in this regards b) Information which requires the action in consequence of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal. This information suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) is annexed for reference.  The notice u/s 148 is issued with prior approval of PCIT on 23.06.2022. The approval attached is approval of PCIT and is a common approval given to various cases including assessee.  Kindly guide the line of action to be taken by the assessee.      

read more

Assessee is an individual and filed the return of Income disclosing income from business and other souces for AY 2014-15. During the year under consideration has also sold agricultural land and profit on sale of the same  on the bonafide belief and as per certificate from Talthi that said land is beyond 8 kms from municiple corporation and population of the village is less than 10000. As per mutation entry also crops like ground nut were cultivated. During the course of scrutiny which was selected under Cass for large deposits in Bank, which includes amount received on sale of agricultural land.  As per advice of CA the assessee has submitted letter during the course of assessment proceedings that Said land is with in 8 kms and therefore voluntarily offered profit on sale of land and also paid tax on the same. AO also completed assessement and initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of Income. AO also levied the penalty for concealment of Income on the ground that assessee reply is afterthought and assessee would not have disclosed had its return is not selected in scrutiny.  Cit A has also confirmed the same.  In reality the said land is agricultural land situated out side 8 kms and also situated at village  having polulation less than 10000, even 7/12 extract also shows crops are cultivated. Whether assessee can submit these papers as additional evidences and  take this stand before ITAT that admission before AO was under bonafide belief and relied up advice of CA in the appeal before ITAT.

read more

Suppose, SAR issued by Parent entity to employees of subsidiary with no reimbursement from Subsidiary. Subsidiary claim it as expenses. Is it allowed? If yes, do we have any Case law supporting this?

read more

Dear Sir, A charitable trust registered under section 12A(a) of the Act. The Society has been allotted land by DDA for the purpose of charitable activities. Now, the Society rented out part building to Limited Companies and the said rent receipts were spent on renovation/construction of the said building. Can the Society claim exemption under section 11 of the Act?   Please clarify.

read more

THE ASSESEE HAS SOLD LISTED COMPANY SHARES THROUGH BROKERS IN BUY BACK AND STT IS CHARGED.WHETHER SECTION 10(34A) BENEFIT AVAILABLE.IN FY 21-22 TCS,JUST DIAL ETC BUY BACK OFFER HAD COME THROUGH BROKER MODE AND STT CHARGED.PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS NOT DIRECT PURCHASE BY COMPANY. PLEASE REPLY ABOUT ABOUT SEC 10(34A).

read more

Assessee and 10 others friends have purchase two plots in The year 2019.and decided to do the construction. Also got the plan approved from Local authority in the name assessee and others. All the owners of land have executed MOU cum declaration where they have mentioned that all have agreed to open Escro account and which will be operated by assessee and one more person from remaining land owners. Each owner will contribute amount require for construction in the same proportion of their ownership of land. In the said declaration they have also mentioned the ratio of profits and losses to be share in proportion of their ownership in land. They have obtained the PAN, Tan, registration under RERA and GST as BOI under the name and style assessee and others. They have filed the return for the first year as BOI. Whether Act of assessee by considering them as BOI is correct? Can they be considered as Co owners of the project? Is there any other alternative in this situation.

read more