- Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.
Recent posts
#91
Discussion / IDS 2016 and Double taxation -...
Last post by rajul5234 - September 14, 2018, 03:51:55 PMM/s. M R Shah logistrics Guj HC SCA 21028/2017 Dt. 14/08/18
Held that reopening in company not maintainable for amount accepted in IDS 2016 in case of share applicant.
R K Patel
Held that reopening in company not maintainable for amount accepted in IDS 2016 in case of share applicant.
R K Patel
#92
Discussion / Writ against Tribunal
Last post by rajul5234 - September 14, 2018, 03:47:46 PMShambhubhai Mahadev Ahir. SCA 6337/2018. 20/8/18 Guj HC
Tribunal has no jurisdiction u/s 254(2) to allow MA when fundamental error is absent in order of appeal.
R K Patel
Tribunal has no jurisdiction u/s 254(2) to allow MA when fundamental error is absent in order of appeal.
R K Patel
#93
Discussion / IDS 2016
Last post by rajul5234 - September 14, 2018, 03:44:14 PMSCA 2497 / 2018. Nareshkumar Bisweshwar Agrawal . 21/8/18. Gujarat HC
IDS 2016 and board powers explained in context of mistake of short payment of tax installment.
R K Patel
IDS 2016 and board powers explained in context of mistake of short payment of tax installment.
R K Patel
#94
Discussion / Time limit for section 143(2) ...
Last post by sujittalukder - August 29, 2018, 07:16:51 PMDear experts,
I have a query on the time limit for section 143(2) in case of defective return.
In a case return in ITR-6 (company assessee) was filed on 27.09.2016 for AY 2016-17.
CPC issued notices u/s 139(9) two times pointing out some defects before finally processing the ITR u/s 143(1). The assessee finally uploaded correct return after curing the defect on 27.11.17. The return was processed in Jan 2018 and refund was issued by CPC.
Now in August 2018, notice u/s 143(2) for the AY 2016-17 was issued by the AO. The notice is system generated and gives the reference to the 'return filed on 27.11.2017'.
Now under the circumstances, whether the notice issued in August 2018 is valid or not? Because normally, the time limit for issuing the notice u/s 143(2) was expired on 30.09.2017.
Please guide.
I have a query on the time limit for section 143(2) in case of defective return.
In a case return in ITR-6 (company assessee) was filed on 27.09.2016 for AY 2016-17.
CPC issued notices u/s 139(9) two times pointing out some defects before finally processing the ITR u/s 143(1). The assessee finally uploaded correct return after curing the defect on 27.11.17. The return was processed in Jan 2018 and refund was issued by CPC.
Now in August 2018, notice u/s 143(2) for the AY 2016-17 was issued by the AO. The notice is system generated and gives the reference to the 'return filed on 27.11.2017'.
Now under the circumstances, whether the notice issued in August 2018 is valid or not? Because normally, the time limit for issuing the notice u/s 143(2) was expired on 30.09.2017.
Please guide.
#95
Discussion / investment allowance
Last post by ketanvyas1975 - August 10, 2018, 12:32:23 PMDear friends,
One assessee failed to claim investment allowance in the return for A.Y. 2016-17 though he was eligible for it. Now what he should do? I could think of following options:
(1) The time limit for revised return is over. However, he can take the remedy of filing revised return alongwith condonation of delay u/s 119 of the Income Tax Act.
(2) He can apply u/s 264 to CIT for revision of intimation u/s 143(1). However, i feel that there will be technical hurdles here as the assessee has failed to claim the investment allowance in the return of income.
What is the better alternative? Is there any other alternative available? The case of the assessee for A.y. 2016-17 has not been selected for scrutiny.
Please share your valuable views.
One assessee failed to claim investment allowance in the return for A.Y. 2016-17 though he was eligible for it. Now what he should do? I could think of following options:
(1) The time limit for revised return is over. However, he can take the remedy of filing revised return alongwith condonation of delay u/s 119 of the Income Tax Act.
(2) He can apply u/s 264 to CIT for revision of intimation u/s 143(1). However, i feel that there will be technical hurdles here as the assessee has failed to claim the investment allowance in the return of income.
What is the better alternative? Is there any other alternative available? The case of the assessee for A.y. 2016-17 has not been selected for scrutiny.
Please share your valuable views.
#96
Discussion / Re: housing loan interest
Last post by ethanscott - July 25, 2018, 02:45:38 PMIn this case, it would be exempted.
#97
Discussion / Re: Can Minor open DEMAT or Tr...
Last post by ethanscott - July 25, 2018, 02:42:52 PMQuote from: Bhumin on April 19, 2012, 05:08:42 PM
Dear All,
1) Can Minor open Demat account?
2) Can Minor open Trading account?
3) What if minor received share by way of gift or inheritance - How to hold those shares or how to transfer those shares ?
Regards,
Bhumin Mehta.
A minor cannot open a demat or trading account by him/herself but can use his parent's trading account if needed.
In the case of a gift or inheritance too, it would have to go to the parent's account since the kid won't have a legal account.
#98
Discussion / unverifiable purchases *****SL...
Last post by CA.BHUPENDRASHAH - June 29, 2018, 02:07:30 PMWhere purchases made by assessee-trader were duly supported by bills and payments were made by account payee cheque, seller also confirmed transaction and there was no evidence to show that amount was recycled back to assessee, Assessing Officer was not justified in treating said purchases as bogus under section 69C: SLP dismissed
[2018]
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat-1
v.
Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia
arising from THE TAX APPEAL NO. 691 of 2017 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
[2018]
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat-1
v.
Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia
arising from THE TAX APPEAL NO. 691 of 2017 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
#99
Discussion / Re: "We do not want to mention...
Last post by brett_lee38 - June 18, 2018, 11:58:10 AMWeldon Bhupender Shah Ji
#100
Discussion / Re: Multiplicity of appeals
Last post by brett_lee38 - May 24, 2018, 04:34:41 PMUr query is very confusing like orders of one ITAT member earlier posted in Mumbai. But answer is that both are separate remedies and merely because one is dismissed that does not kill the other one. OK even if you wont understand then engage me i will argue :)