Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 Section 40A(3) - Where payments are  made against purchase of traded goods exceeding ₹ 20,000 and assessee's claim is not covered by any of the exceptions provided under rule 6DD, still rule 6DD cannot be mechanically applied.ITAT CUTTACK gives the reason.

Ratio n Full text of the decision  at-
Where  the assessee has kept the shares as stock in trade,whether rule 8D will apply ?

Full text of a recent ITAT Kolkata decision at:
Commissioner of Income Tax – II Versus M/s. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd.
ITA no. 356/2013
Order Dated.- September 22, 2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ.

Validity of reopening of assessment proceedings

1)Assessment was re-opened based on information received by the AO from the Investigation Wing.
   Why Reopening was held to be invalid ?

2) If the  safeguards as per GKN driveshaft were flouted , will it invalidate the exercise of   jurisdiction under Section 147 and 148 of the Act?

Read here
Discussion / Re: Income Tax - Section 269SS
« Last post by SANTHOSH on October 03, 2015, 02:04:17 PM »
Thank you sir
Discussion / Re: Income Tax - Section 269SS
« Last post by sai prasad on October 03, 2015, 01:30:21 PM »
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

Discussion / Re: Income Tax - Section 269SS
« Last post by SANTHOSH on October 03, 2015, 01:10:42 PM »
Thank you Sir for reply.

I require a clarification regarding Pay order.

As you said If we take pay order there is no problem as per Income Tax Act, 1961. What I want to know is whether we have to take care that( in the point of seller) from whom the consideration is received i.e If buyer is B and her spouse A is taken Pay order and given to us but the property is sold to B. Is there any problem in the above transaction as per income tax i.e. In pay order we don't know from whose the amount is receiving? 

Is there any consequences as per Income Tax
Discussion / Re: Income Tax - Section 269SS
« Last post by sai prasad on October 03, 2015, 01:02:01 PM »
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
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.
Discussion / Extension of Due Date for AY 2015-2016
« Last post by Chandravijay Shah on October 02, 2015, 04:32:54 PM »
Well done, Dr K Shivaram and his Team and also CTC for convincing Hon'ble Bombay High Court to direct CBDT to extend the Due Date u/s 139(1) for AY 2015-2016 from 30.09.2015 to 31.10.2015. Hopelessly do hope, the strictures passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 02.10.2015 and other High Courts earlier will teach a lesson to the arrogant (for what reason?) Bureaucrats and at least not create unease of doing Business in India.
Discussion / Lull member of ITAT
« Last post by nsingh on September 30, 2015, 10:51:46 AM »
Virus of Mr Bedi are spread all over the India. Now these viruses can be seen in the blood of one ITAT accountant member posted in Delhi. Only God knows why this member has been putting irrelevant queries from the AR of the assessee. This member does not know many provisions of the Act for example he openly said that he has not even read section 80HHF and 10AA, he donít even know that under the new Income Tax provisions there is no need for getting recognition for Partnership firm from the AO. He donít know that under the income tax act registration of sale deed is not required. Only God knows how this person has been injected in the noble institution of ITAT, I am aware that every body is desirous of knowing his name so it is my promise that I will reveal his name once he pass a stupid order in my case. I will also make representation to the law secretary that he should be removed from the post of accountant member.
Discussion / Sudden change in the constitution would amount to crrouption
« Last post by nsingh on September 30, 2015, 10:50:48 AM »
Few days before it is observed in Delhi ITAT Benches that constitution of H Bench was suddenly change, it is like this when the constitution was originally constituted the Bench was of Sh H.S.Sidhu and Intru Rama Rao thereafter the on 21 the constitution was changed and Mr. Sidhu an honest person was removed from the Bench and a very junior most member has been given the Bench. It is true that constitution of Bench is the discretion of the Honíble Vice President. However a sudden change in the middle of week leads to an apprehension that there is some black in Dal. So it is my request to the Law Secretary that an enquiry should be recommended in this regard.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10