i made computation of income in a simple paper in response to notice u/s 148. ROI was not filed u/s 148. Whether computation of income is sufficient in place of return of income and valid. The AO has treated as income of the assessee as per computation of income. it is valid or invalid, please intimate

read more

reply by mr. Bekal is ambiguous. the question is ” so dissolved firm due to death of one of two partners payment of 50 lakhs by remaining partner who will continue the business as proprietor or take some other as partner whether firm should pay tax on goodwill or otherwise one view in bcaj  says that payment to legal heir is not taxable issue being common views of many persons needed my view is it is not taxable as legal heir is not partner

read more

i have not filed ROI u/s 148 but in a simple paper income declared. whether it is sufficient or not. please suggest with latest judgments

read more

The assessee company recd 148A notice in March 2022.The assessee replied.Matter was of 25 lakhs. 148A order dated 6/4/22 came on 6/4/22.Notice u/s 148 also issued dated 6/4/22. Is it valid notice .148 notice is time barred on 31/3/22 for AY 18-19 of below 50 lakhs matter.Experts opinion awaited,What should be assessee next course of action.

read more

RESIDENTIAL FLAT WAS SOLD IN FY 2015-16 AND CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT WAS INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME WITH NATIONALISED BANK HOWEVER THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE UTILISED FOR PURCHASE OF NEW HOUSE AND BY OVERSIGHT AMOUNT REMAINED IN BANKUNDERCAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME TILL FY 2022-23 WHAT COULD BE TAX IMPACT IF CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT IS CLOSED WITH BANK IN FY 2022-23

read more

Assessee has received the Notice U/SEc, 147/148 after 31.03.2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 and assessee has also filed the ROI in response to same. In this respect assessee challenged the validity of the said notice on the ground that Explanation A(a)(ii) and Explanation A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 respectively issued under The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 are ultra vires to the said Relaxation Act, 2020. How ever AO has not responded to the same. After the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Communications and Transformation Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT in the Writ Petition No.1334 of 2021 in the Order dated 29.03.2022 has held that notice U/Sec.148 of the Act issued after 31.03.2021 are bad in law and are not valid. The assessee submitted to the AO that since the notice U/Sec.148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer after the specified dated i.e 31.03.2021 and in view of above  BHC  which is binding under the “principle of judicial precedence”, it is submitted that the notice u/s 148(1) of the Act issued in the present case of the assessee may kindly be quashed in toto and the preset reassessment proceedings be withdrawn as non-est and the return be consigned to records as filed. However there is no response from the AO. In this background, whether assesse also have to file an writ petition before the BHC or wait till the action of the AO . Pl guide   Accordingly, we request you to kindly drop the re-assessment proceedings initiated on issuance of Notice U/Sec.148 of the Act after 31.03.2021.

read more

Assessee is partnership engaged in business of developing of Housing Project. In the A.Y. 2016-17 has offered the income as per sales consideration received however the A.O. has assessed the income by invoking the provisions of Sec. 43CA  and made the addition difference between the sale consideration and Stamp duty valuation. Also made reference to the DVO, his report came after the assessment and DVO also valued the  FMV of the units sold and now the difference between the sales and value as per DVO is less than 10% in all cases except 2 cases where the difference is about 12% . In the appeal before CIT A, the appellant made the following submissions Earlier these sections did not provide for any safe harbour limit w.r.t difference in SDV and actual consideration up to which the said sections would not trigger, which resulted in additions in income even in case of marginal difference in the valuation. Finance Act 2018 has inserted a proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43CA providing 5% tolerance limit in variation between declared sale consideration vis-a-vis stamp duty value for making no addition. Similar proviso was inserted by the Finance Act 2018 to sub-section (1) to section 50C of the Act. The said tolerance limit band was enhanced from 5% to 10% by the Finance Act 2020 w.e.f. 01.4.2021.Thus Finance Act 2018, came up with a remedial measure by         providing a tolerance band of 5% in respect of the difference in Stamp Duty Value and the actual consideration which was further increased to 10% by Finance Act 2020. Due to this remedial measure, SDV is deemed to be the sale consideration only where the variation between the agreement value and the circle rate exceeds 10% i.e., there is a safe harbour limit of 10%. Simply, where the difference between the SDV and the actual transaction price is not more than 10%, the sections 43CA, 50C and Sec. 56(2)(x) would not get triggered. However CIT A has confirm the addition on following grounds Relaxation w.r.t the ‘Third proviso to sec. 50C(1) was prospectively inserted from 01.04.2018. The proviso was further amended by with prospective effect from 01.04.2020 and the safe harbour limit of 5% was increased to 10%. Accordingly, the variation permissible was only 5% and relaxation of 10% would not apply. Since the Difference is more than 5% addition is confirmed and also rejected the contention that no benefit of 5% or 10% can be given if the difference is more than 5% or 10% please guide, whether assessee can take the argument that the amendment is    retrospective on the ground that where the legislation is enacted with a purpose of        mitigating undue hardship the provision in such a case has to be   given a reasonable and equitable construction and has to be considered to be retrospective in nature so as to make the provision workable and even the benefit of 5% or 10% also be given iof difference is more than 5% or 10%

read more

During the course of assessment proceedings , for verification of Purchases called for information U/Sec. 133(6) from few parties at the flag end of assessment proceedings . Few parties responded and few not. Assessing Officer completed assessment by making addition of all purchases effected from these parties on the following grounds:: a. Parties have not responded therefore those are not genuine. b. Parties who have responded have not provided full information  and provided details of their PAN and Financials alongwith account extract of assessee and confirm the amount of purchases . Whether action  of Assessing Officer justified when a. He has not provided the details of information collected by him to assessee. b. It is not the case that his notice issued u/sec. 133(6) has not been serve to the parties c. Parties who responded have not provided the information desired by AO but confirmed the tramscation. d. Not rejected books of accounts which were audited e. Accepted the sales disclosed by assesee. Pl guide .

read more

Where the credit has accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies, refund can be applied under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Please advise how wiil we calculate the eligible refund amount in the following case wherein at the end of the tax period there is closing stock much higher than the sale of goods. For Example Information Pertaining to Inward Supplies Particulars                    Value               Rate of GST     GST Amount Inward supplies            Rs 100 Lakhs             18%     Rs 18.00 Lakhs Inward supplies            Rs 300 Lakhs               28%     Rs 84.00 Lakhs Total                            Rs. 350 Lakhs                          Rs 102.00 Lakhs Note:- Both types of inward supplies were used for manufacturing of outward supply attracting GST @5%.   Information Pertaining to Outward Supplies Particulars                                            Value               Rate of GST     GST Amount Turnover of Inverted Rated Supply.      Rs 125 Lakhs   5%  Rs 6.25 Lakhs Turnover of Other Supplies.                 Rs 10 Lakhs     28%               Rs 2.80 Lakhs Total                                                    Rs 135 Lakhs                           Rs 9.05 Lakhs

read more

Firm with 2 partners A & B . A died on june 2020 B has taken C as a partner B & C has calculated the share of goodwill of A on the date of death. B and C decided to pay 50 lack in five years to the wife of deceased A whether the amendment made from 01/04/2020 is applicable in this case and any capital gain on this 50 lack is payable by the firm the goodwill amount calculated on death and paid to legal hair

read more