Whether clause 44 And 30C of Form 3Cd are applicable for Reporting in 3CD for Asst Year 2022-23.

read more

Respected sir, A charitable trust registered u/s 12A(a) of the Act, now carrying on business activity  having  in excess of 20% of gross receipts wants to forfeit exemption u/s 11 . what is the itr form to be used?  taxability is on net receipts (after expenses) or on grosss receipts , what is the rate of tax ? Pl elucidate

read more

Assessee is an individual and has income from partnership firm, interest on fixed deposits. The assessee has filed the return of income for A.Y 2015-16 wherein the income on account of LTCG on sale of agricultural land and interest on savings bank account was remained to be disclosed in the return of income. Therefore assessee submitted a letter before the AO that he was under a bonfide belief that the land being agricultural land situated outside 8 kms from the local authorities, therefore has not offered the income form sale of said land in the return of income. After coming to knowledge that the aerial distance of the said land is less than 8 kms and therefore an asset is a capital asset, however, since the time limit for filing revised return was not available, assessee submitted a letter to the AO that he voluntarily wants to offer the said income and submitted revised computation. However, the AO has not appreciated the submission and levied penalty 271(1)(c) on the following grounds: 1. The claim of the assessee about voluntarily offering the capital gains is an after thought decisions 2.Since the assessee is guided by a CA, he must have taken advise before filing the return. 3. Provision of the Act are very clear on the issue on how to calculate the distance for situation of agri land from municipal limits, the assessee has very little choice choice to get confused and not offering CG on sale of such land. 4. Had there been no scrutiny, the assessee would never had offered the CG for Tax . CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the ground that it cannot take up plea that all the income was offered voluntarily and cannot take the shelter of ignorance and oversight. The assessee has filed an appeal before ITAT. Please Guide.  

read more

Regular NRI assessee due to technical reason could not file the ITR for A.Y. 2020-21. TDS is more than the tax liability. Whether in application U/s 119 of IT Act to CBDT for permission to file the ITR can be obtained? Is there any other alternative with the assessee?

read more

I purchased the residential flat on 19th sept 1988 for Rs. 2,31,000/- subsequently flat went for development under individual agreement dated 31/12/2010. showing a value of Rs. 7,97,500/- and stamp duty paid by developer was Rs. 22,500/- subsequently redeveloipment delayed and was finally completed and cc certificate issued in November 2018. What will be the cost of acquisition if I plan to sell the flat now?

read more

On dissolution of firm, when it pays capital gain tax u/Sec. 9B, whether firm is elegible to claim exemption U/Sec. 54EC if assets distributed To partner is long term capital asset. If the firm decided To make investment in specified bonds and then distribute the same to partners in its books of accounts and record the same facts in dissolution deed and If partners offer the income accruing on the in investment on year To year basis, is it possible to claim the amount received on Redumption after five years completely tax free? Whether credit for TDS is available to partners

read more

The assessee sold an immovable property and deposited sale consideration to the tune of  caital gain under Capital gain scheme account and claimed deduction in ITR 2020-21 under 54F. Thereafter, the assessee demised before utilizing the deopsoit amount as per scheme. What will be tax treatment of Capital gain in case, the legal heir of assessee does not purchase any property or does not utilise the money as per scheme.

read more

Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction. In the FY 2012-13, assessee company has issued 3,00,000 shares of Rs. 10/- each to various parties at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share and accordingly collected Rs. 30,00,000/- for share capital and Rs. 2,70,00,000/- on account of share premium. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO asked the details about issue of these shares to various companies at a premium and justify the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee company could not produce the evidence in support of the same. Therefore, the AO made the addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- in the hands of the company as unexplained cash credit. CIT(A) and Hon’ble ITAT also confirmed the said addition made by the AO. The assessee company filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. Later on the assessee company has opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the PCIT has also issued Form 5. Since the assessee company has complied with all the conditions and paid the taxes due as per DTVSV Act. Issues:  Can assessee company now transfer the shares which were in the name of different people to the name of the main promotor shareholders of the company in their share holding ratio? Is there any further tax implication of this transaction and transfer of shares in the hands of the company as well as promotor share holder?

read more

Assessee is private limited Co. Assessee is having building as fixed asset and assessee Co is regularly claiming depreciation as per companies Act. However since the year of purchase of building in the FY 2014_15 assessee has not claimed depreciation on building as per sec. 32 of the Income Tax Act. In the financial year 2018-19 assessee Co sold the building and offer profit on same after considering index cost as LTCG, on the ground that since no depreciation has been claimed as per provisions of Income Tax Act.  AO as well as CIT has not appreciated the submission and therefore confirmed addition by rejecting claim of the assessee on the ground that once assessee has claimed depreciation on the asset even as per companies Act, the profit on sale will be STCG. Whether action of AO and CIT A is correct? Is there any decision which supports assessee’s stand?

read more

ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y.2014-15 WAS REOPENDED U/S 148 DUE TO AUDIT OBJECTION. FALLOWED BY REOPENING AO ON VERIFICATION OF ASSESSEE COMPANIES RECORDS SATIFYED REVENUE AUDIT WITH  NECESSARY DETAILS, FALLOWED BY THIS REVENUE AUDIT DROPPED REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. AO UPLOADED DROPPING OF REOPENING ORDER ON NFAC PORTAL IN THE MEAN TINE NFAC ISSUED 142(1) NOTICE AND ULTIMATELY COMPLETED ASSESSMENT BY RAISING HUGE DEMAND WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZENCE AO’S ORDER OF AUDIT OBJECTION

read more