Service provider (individual) has provided supply of man-power service to body corporate in FY 2015-16. Service receiver has already laid service tax on RCM on said transaction. department held that – service provided is not manpower service and demanded service tax from service provider. i did find case law wherein it is held that – if service receiver has paid ST to service provider (who had charged in his bill), then service receiver not required to pay ST on RCM as it will amount to double taxation. the above case are not directly applicable in my case. request to guide me – provide line of argument and relevant case laws.

read more

The assessee company original assessment for asst year 2006-07 was completed u/s 143(3) in 2008. Assessee case was reopened in 2010 and 143(3)/147 was done in 2010.Assessee paid taX determined within 30 days in 2011. ASSESSEE preferred appeal and got part relief in 2011 from cit appeal.In itat also some relief was granted IN 2016/2019 .The assessee was given appeal effect order in 2022 january for both cit appeal and itat .(appeal effect given in jan 2022 for both). However on perusal it is seen that interest u/s 244A is 6 pc per annum.The assessee feels that interest u/s 244A(1A) THAT IS ADDITIONAL 3 PC PER ANNUM BE ALSO GRANTED. QUESTIONS: 1.WHAT SHOULD BE INTEREST PERCENT FOR LAST 11 YEARS. 2.HOW TO MOVE AFTER CREDIT OF REFUNDS AND INTEREST.WHETHER APPEAL LIES OF 147/250 APPEAL EFFECT ORDER AND 147/254 APPEAL EFFECT ORDER.OR RECTIFICATION WILL SUFFICE.THE AO IS SILENT ON 244A(1A) ALL TOGETHER.

read more

The assessee is an individual engaged in the retail trade business. He has offered the income u/s 44AD by applying net profit rate at 10% of gross receipts of Rs. 15,10,125/-. For A.Y 2015-16, on the basis of information that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.8,70,500/- in bank. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee has stated this cash is deposited out of his business receipts of Rs. 15,10,125/- and which is more than cash deposited in savings bank and therefore no addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account can be made. The AO has not appreciated the explanation of the assessee and made the addition of entire cash deposits of Rs. 8,70,500/-. Is action of AO justified ? Please Guide.

read more

Assessee is Private Limited company . For A.Y. 2020-21, has opted to be taxed U/SEc. 115BAA of the Act. For The A.Y. 2019-20, assessee has paid the tax as per regular provisions. In the A.Y. 2019-20, there was unutilised additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee company as per the proviso to section 32(1) of the Act and proviso to section 115BAA, wherein it is provided that, where there is a depreciation allowance in respect of a block of a asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the AY beginning on first day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall be made to the WDV of such block as on 01.04.2019 in the prescribed manner, if the option under sub-section (5) is exercised for PY relevant to AY beginning on 01.04.2020. In view of above proviso to section 115BAA, the company has claimed the balance depreciation for AY 2019-2020, which was not allowed in the AY 2019-2020 as per proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. In the year 2021. The assessing officer has rejected the contention on the ground that since the assessee has opted to be taxed u/s 115BAA, the assessee is not eligible for claim of carry forward unutilised additional depreciation for A.Y  2019-2020. Whether the action of the AO is justified in law? Please guide.

read more

Assessee is an individual. and for A.Y. 2012-13 since his appeal was pending before the CIT(A) has opted for the VSVS and fill up the form 1 and 2, As per the Advice of his Lawyer has paid the tax as per working of the liability given by the lawyer . However , while issuing Form 3, the liability worked out by the PCIT is more by Rs. 12/- , and where as as per Lawyer the assessee has paid correct amount. PCIT is rejecting his application under VSVS as there is short payment of Rs. 12/- . Please guide.

read more

Assessee is Partnership Firm having 3 partners . Son and daughter of the one partner are working as employee for last more than 5 years . All the partners have decided to take the Term Policy( which is not key man Ins Policy)  in the name of these employees to safe guard the interest of firm, therefore decided to claim the same as deduction U/SEc. 37 of the Act. The nominee of the policy will be Firm. Whether this is allowable deduction in the hands of firm U/Sec. 37 of the Act ? Whether the premium paid will be considered as perquisite in the hands of employee? Pl. guide

read more

My Arrogant father brought few properties under my  name. I trusted him, signed on documents wherever needed my signature.  He never revealed the details, I never asked him.  I was a fool to believe him, all this happened more than 20 years ago. These properties are now in dispute, other parties are contacting me, threatening legal actions and other consequence. I am asking my father to explain the details, but he is so arrogant, he claims it is none of my business, since those properties belong to him. I agree with him that I didn’t contribute anything in purchasing the properties. I am asking my father to either resolve the issues with thirds parties or explain the details to me so that I can handle with third parties.  He stopped communicating with me.  I have no stake in the property, but it has become a big headache for me. I am requesting him to transfer all the properties under to whomever he likes, but he is not responding. I know I can send legal notice, but he is clever enough to reply and avoid any further legal action. As per Benami act,  I am his son and he can legally buy property. Is there any action I can take against him to transfer properties back to him?

read more

We have settled a dispute under Direct Tax VsV Scheme. We would like to withdraw the appeal. Please provide any template for reference.

read more

THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 144 RWS 147 FOR AAY2013-14MADE ON 28.11.2019  IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT LEVIED INTEREST U S 234B(1)  THE  ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICAATION AGAINST THE ASSESSMNT ORDER UNDER VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT 2020 AND MADE THE PAYMENT FOR WHICH FORM 4DTVSV RECEIVED . NOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTS TO AMEND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THERE IS A MISTAKE APPAARENT FROM THE RECORD WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 154/155 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961.PLEASE ADVICE HOW TO GO IN THIS MATTER  

read more

Regarding sale of rural agricultural land i want to know cash receipt of any amt could be deposited in Bank. If so or so not y wt is the reason . Y u k not dep cash received on sale of agriculture land as it is not a income according to capital asset or gain.              

read more