Messages

SINCE IT IS NEITHER REGISTERED U/S11 NOR FALLS U/S 10 FORMS 5 IS APPLICABLE

THE ASSESSEE MAINTAIN BOOKS AND IN THE EARLIER YEAR HE WITHDREWIN LUMPSUM ON 31.03.2016 RS.3500000/- THAT WAS BROUGHT BACK INTO BOOKS AT THE TIME OF DEPOSIT OF HD NOTES  THE A.O DISBELIEVED  AND HELD THAT THE HD NOTES SHOUDL HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IMMEDIATELY AFTER  ITS BAN.  PLEASE GIVE ANY JUDGEMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.

the statutory obligation cast u/s 139(1) on any one earning income exceeding taxable minimum has to file return of income.if one fails he runs the risk. if he files he can plan the matters. it is not the department which has to keep track but  the  person who earns taxable income  to comply with the legal provisions otherwise face the consequences.

what is the latest position of the judgments on the deemed income of the difference between apparent consideration and market value of the property purchased in the hands of the purchaser

this is a more a matter of fact and source . So long as the money emanates from buyer ,from his own sources of her spouse or others,  the same is not relevant in the case of seller . The details  must find place in the sale deed. It is better to keep a copy of  the pay orer

in the hands of a buyer, it is consideration paid for purchase of property and no consequential action follows.However, he  buys as a stock-in-trade for business provisions of sec.40A(3) are applicable.

Nextly ,advance for  property is convered under the new explanation to sec.269SS,in the hands of the seller. A pay order is a demand draft issued for usage within the town/city and  it complles with the
requirement.
The full payment received , on the date of sale, is out of sec.269SS . Since the same is registered on that day,it is not advance or otherwise. Advance is amount received before the sale deed and the word ,otherwise,  may include part payment, emd or any such other term  used to indicate the payments to be made before the completion of sale deed.

dear members
how to categorise the following  vis-a-vis dept.ciruclars and judicial precedents
1. shares  purchase and sale on the single day - delivery based
2. shares purchase and sale with a gap of 20 to 60 days
3. what is the turnover for F&O transactions. whether it is the net result of the transaction

pl give your view on the above

what one has to cosider is that bonus shares are not cost bearing. the market rates on the exchange  are not relevant because of the basic characteristics of the  item involved. we can take  clues or draw an analogy from already decided matters. let us explore .

bonus shares are   no-cost so the issue of  consideration or inadequate consideration doesnot arise. the sub-section to sec.56 is not applicable to bonus shares.

the department  is issuing spate of letters/notices  to purchasers of properties , where the consideration paid is less than  market value/guide line value. Whether  the said sec. is applicable to purchases since the word used is 'received"  doesnot  mean purchase/sale .

Further  is it applicable to capital assets as per sec.2(14)?

whether  fiction of treating the difference between apparent consideration and market value is tenable?

If  an Indl/Huf claims that property purchased is meant to be stock in trade ? how to justify the same?

your views are welcome

what is relevant is utilisation of sale proceeds of the transferred house. once  the funds are ploughed back either by payment to a builder or own construction ,the exemption is justifiable.

payment of any consideration to the trustees goes against the very concept of the charitable trust. It contravenes sec.13 of the IT Act,61 and the trust loses its exemption

the illustrative judgment of the Spll.Bench in Merylin Shipping Trasnport Corporation must be read  and  painstakingly the bench elaborated the view,that was upheld.

i feel the rationale behind the words " payable" is  the payee having not received money  could get  credit for tax  by way of TDS deducted at source by the payee. Similarly  payer in respect of payments in full should not be bridled with liablity to TDS ,as funds have already passed over by him to the payee.

an all important judgment of the Special Bench of ITAT Vizag Bench in Merylin Shipping  Transport Corporation appeared in 2012- 16 ITR (Trib)1,wherein held that disallowance applies only in respect of outstanding payments appearing in balance sheet and not for payments already made. I think this mitigates the problem to a great extent