Messages

The correct view is that the due date defined in s.139 states that the assessee who are required to furnish report in s. 92E, the due date is 30.11.2013. Hence the due date for them is 30.11.2013.

But, there is a small issue that wherever the partners are also to file their returns, one may take a view that the partners have to file the return by 30.09.2013 even though the firm may have to file the return by 30.11.2013.

i agree with the views of siddhesh

Any decisions on the issue as to whether the registration of a trust can be cancelled because the trust has not carried out any activity so as to enable the CIT to verify whether the activities of teh trust are as per the objects of the trust?

The conversion of Company to LLP is exempt under certain conditions. The LLP is also regarded as Firm for the purposes of IT Act. Is the conversion of firm to LLP exempt?

One possible view could be yes. This is because, the term 'convert'has been defined under the 2nd Schedule of LLP Act as transfer ofproperties, assets, interest, rights, privileges, liabilities, obligations andundertakings of the firm to the Limited Liability Partnership.  This definition largely signifies the transformation of a firm into different entity which is not the case with LLP for the purpose of IT Act.

Further, the firm and LLP both are enjoying the status of firm under IT Act. There is no specific provision for exemption from firm to company whereas the conversion of company to LLP is exempt. The provisions of conversion of firm to LLP under the LLP Act has no implication as although under LLP Act, the conversion results in change in entity, but under IT Act, it does not result in change in status. The conversion of firm to LLP merely results in the change in the rights vis a vis the partners while the nature of entity under IT Act remains same. Hence, it can be said that there is no transfer of the capital asset.

Looking it differently, the transfer as per LLP Act amounts to transfer of entire undertaking lock stock barrel. Hence, it is a case of slump sale which does not result in any profit. Hence, even on the said count, it not result in taxable income.

What are the view of the members?

Several decisions offlate are surrisingly against the assessee

The hearing is now on 12.06.2010

There is recent SB decision in Scientific saying that the loss from non-eligible unit cannot be set off against profit from eligible unit while computing 10A. There are decisions that even loss from eligible unit cannot be set off against profit from eligible unit whlie computing 80I deduction.

Is anyone aware of decision on 10A/10B where loss from eligible unit cannot be set off against profit from eligible unit before calcuting 10A deduction which means that the 10A deduciton to be calculated independantly of each unit?

Can you please forward to me on ddshah.ca@gmail.com

Although Rule 8D has been applied and held to be retrospective, we may still have a chance to argue that (2) and (3) require the satisfaction of the AO on incorrectness of the claim made by the assessee before Rule 8D is invoked. Similar requirement is also found in Rule 8D(1). Hence, the AO has to cross this hurdle at least.

Although the scheme seems to be good, one aspect which should be looked into is whether the exemption u/s. 54EC would be available in 2011 as the income taxed in 2011 is the income deemed to be the capital gains relating to long term capital asset. The exemption u/s., 54EC is only in respect of income arising as a result of transfer of LTC asset. Hence, the exemption can be a litigative issue. Moreover, it is correctly said that the money could have better oppotunity cost as the CGAS would fetch income only of 4% approx.

Another question that may arise that does the above decision of Supreme Court also prove that the decision of Lokhandwala Construction on interest deduction to builders is correct?

I think the issue is clear from the s. 2(42A) where the period of holding is deemed to include the the period of the previous owner. The same interpretation also follows for proviso to s., 48. The decision of Mumbai ITAT seems incorrect. I think there is a decision of Mumbai SMC bench  on the issue in Raksha Turakhia's case delivered. But, the issue is not discussed at length in that case. Yet, may have some pursuasive value,

The issue could be looked upon in a different way.

The CIT(A) is in the appellate jurisdiction. He is not assessing the income but only adjudicating the income. He cannot have same powers as that of the AO. But, when the AO is debarred from re-assessing and rectifying the assessment (by way of proviso) to give effect to s. 14A, the same cannot be indirectly done by CIT(A) by resorting to s. 14A which is not invoked by the AO.

I think the applying the provisions of s. 14A would result in allowing him to do what AO cannot directly do.

That's the decision earlier I refered to as pune itat decision. Is theer any recent decision of Mumbai Bench on similar issue?

Is there any latest decision on the issue from Mumbai ITAT after considering Pune ITAT and Del ITAT (in 111 TTJ)?