• Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.


Contact details of departmental representatives is available.

Main Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - sai prasad

Discussion / sec.56(2)(vii)
February 22, 2019, 05:23:21 PM
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
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
Discussion / sec.56(2)(vii)
May 28, 2015, 11:18:01 AM
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
Discussion / sec.40a(ia) disallowance
January 19, 2012, 05:09:58 PM
A film distributor pays film processing charges to film labs. No TDS was made. The film labs have given confirmations that they filed returns of the respective year and paid tax. The issue for consideration
1.Whether abatement of TDS liability u/s. 191 will holds good for sec.40a(ia) because TDS relevant provisions are  Chapter XVIIB
2.  Sec.40a is a nonobstante provision  covering sec.30 to 30 . Whether proc.charges fall under the above sections or sec.28. If it is later sec. , sec.40a(ia) is not applicable

please give your valuable views with supporting case laws
A firm doing buisness in construction of  residential and commercial blocks sold away residential block and the commercial complex is ready. Portion of it was sold. The first and second floor of the complex is let out to banks. The asset is shown as stock-in-trade in the books. The remaining floors are under completion. What is the nature of the rental income in its hands. If it is Property income, there would not be any deduction towards interest and remuneration to partners. Is it income from business? In case the firm keeps these floors to get regular income , what would be the nature of income? Please give your valuable opinion
Discussion / requirement of tax audit
July 11, 2011, 05:02:43 PM
a non-medical person owns a nursing home and manages the same . He accounts for collections and all the expendtiure. He pays to Doctors their share in collections. It is a professional activity that requires tax audit in the event of receipts exceeding Rs.15 lakhs.The activity is that of medical practice and the same has been done by qualified doctors. Whether it is the activity that is to be consdiered or is it the person,who is a non-medical one.please give your valuable opinion
Agrl.lands are never assets under the W.T. Act  and they were excluded from the assets under the old provisions of sec.2(ea). Now from F.A. 1992 sec.2(ea) defines assets ,which are taxable assets , and known as specified assets. The urban land  in the jurisdiction of a municipality or any other town areas with a population exceeding 10000 as per previous Census and the land in the pheripheral limits of such municipality is  a speicified asset. The proviso to the said sec. provides that the land on which construction is not permitted under any law; land for industrial purposes not exceeding 2 years as vacant land and land held as stock in trade for a period not exceeding 10 years are excluded. Thus agrl.lands are not intended to be included as  theyare  productive assets and  never they were treated as assets under the Wealth tax Act. The assessing officer is of the view that "any land" incldes agrl.lands too. Please give your opinion and any supporting case laws or such material.
HRA received by both the spouses employed in the same department.Whether  both of them can claim exemption . The conditon of  payment of rent  equally in both their hands and the fulfilment of conditions of Sec.10(13A) r/w rule 2A would  get their claim for exemption   in respect of tenanted house  in which they live.

An early response is welcome
Discussion / car lifetime tax
March 16, 2011, 09:41:21 AM
Please give your opinion with supporting case law   on the issue as to whether car lifetime tax,one time payment, is revenue expenditure. Sec.43B  proivdes that any tax,duty  and fee are  deductible in the year of payment. Whether the above said tax is enduring nature and needs to be capitalised  in the face of Sec.43B

An early response is welcome
Discussion / admissibility of claim u/s.40(b)
July 10, 2010, 11:12:35 AM
In the case of  a firm  that carried on construction activity and upon completion ,it has retained some of  the property ,which is let out ,on a sizable rent . Whether remuneration and interest to partners is available against the property income?

Whether a firm without any previous business activity purchases a property and earns rental income,deduction u/s.40(b) is allowable? Would the schedular system of taxation entitle the firm to the above  claim

Please give your response.
the non-payment of TDS by an assessee entails disallowance of the expenditure.In a case , where the receipient already paid tax and filed its return, the  TDS liability is abated u/s.191 Whether the disallowance u/s.40(ia)is still applicable because  during the relevant previous year there existed liability to make TDS.That once the payee paid the tax and there is no need for making TDS as per the sec.191,it must satisfy the requirement of sec.40(ia).In other words , there is no separte liabiity to make TDS  u/s.40(ia).This provision needs elaboration and the opinion of my learned brethern and  any judgments sofar may please be posted at the earliest.
thank you
c.sai prasad.

addition on 24,11.2008

Sec.40a(ia) doesnot disallow the corresponding expenditure but provides that if the TDS is paid in the subsequent years,exp.would be allowed in that subsequent year.Therefore,it implies that where the payee didnot pay tax and the liability to make TDS remians on the payer,it must be paid though in a subsequent year in order to get deduction.Otherwise,making TDS  where payee already paid directly would  amount to paying tax twice and it is not intended.It looks unconvincing that even if payee had  already paid tax, the payer in order to get deduction must make another payment of TDS in favour of the payee.This needs to be kept in view in evaluating the issue.

thanking you
c.sai prasad.
 the rule 6DD(k) postulates that cash payment made by a princiapl to his agent ,who is required to pay  cash for goods and services on behalf of the principal,shall be an exception to the mandatory application of sec.40A(3) of the I.T.Act.
Whether any payment made by agent in cash  and claimed by him that he is required to do so would bring it within the above said rule?or Whether the payments enlisted under the subrule ( a)  to (l) made by an agent on behalf of the principal are only covered?

I personally feel any payment if made by an agent to  meet cash payments must fall under exception. Views of my esteemed colleagues are welcome.
A partner in a firm borrows money and invested in the firm.The firm doesnot pay interest but discloses income and pays tax in its hands u/s.167B.Whether interest paid by the partner on borrowed capital for the year is allowable as deduction in view of payment of tax by the firm on the income. The firm ,in law and for incometax purposes, is only compendious name given to partners.Whether restriction ui/s.14A comes in the way of claim by partner in view of the principle that payment of tax by the firm tantamounts to payment by its partners.An opinion is requested from my esteemed colleagues.
llife time tax on cars is revenue in nature but the I.T.Dept is of the view that there is enduring advantage for long periiod and it isnot revenue in nature.