Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Discussion / s. 147 , 246, 251 - Reopening of assessment
« Last post by rajul5234 on June 26, 2017, 12:46:28 PM »
Gujarat high court. SCA 16644 / 2012, dated 14/6/17, Radha wami salt

Court struck down reopening considering change of opinion theory and also corelated s.246 , 251(1) and third proviso to s.147 for explaining merger of assessment order with appellate order.

R K Patel
Discussion / Re: Reopening on basis of post assessment information
« Last post by rajul5234 on June 26, 2017, 12:42:46 PM »
Can get from gujarat high court website
Discussion / Re: Taxability of Sodexo meal coupons
« Last post by Mansi Thakkar on June 13, 2017, 04:02:46 PM »
Hi, I have a related query here. The Rule does not define the term 'meal'. In this case, Rs.50 per meal is allowed for how many meals a day? Any decision or judgment on this aspect of the exemption?
Discussion / Re: housing loan interest
« Last post by sushildixit on June 01, 2017, 06:10:18 PM »
Mr. Niranjan Kauli is the most corrupted commissioner of Income Tax Department, yes this is true this person Niranjan Kauli is the most corrupted person as is evident from the fact that when he was CIT(A) he has passed so many contradictory orders, changing his own views.

In two of the cases on which the undersigned would be able to lay his hands only on two orders. And perusal of these two orders would show that he has taken a contradictory view in both these cases and has not exercised his powers under section 154 of rectifying his earlier view. He never sought comments of AO before reversing his view and hence it is a case of measure penalty under service rules. It is my request to vigilance department to initiate immediate action against him otherwise he is going to take VRS and then no body can do anything against him.

Further it is relevant to point out here that he has appointed those advocates on panel of the department as senior panel counsel who don't have any reported judgments either of the High Court or ITAT, son of retired judge of supreme court has been appointed as senior panel counsel because his father was judge there is no single judgment of the son of this retired judge. Therefore it is clear that interview and other darma of counsel is just an eye wash. The retired judge is the man of  congress and very close to congress top leaders. SO my request to PMO that entire panel of senior counsels before the High Court of Delhi must be scrapped immediately

These types of persons should be hang till death in public so that corruption should be finished from this country   
Discussion / Single Transaction and one event u/s 269ST
« Last post by on May 06, 2017, 04:33:45 PM »
My client is a Chit company, the company act as a foreman and getting commission on each auction. The chits conducted on monthly auction basis. The company collects cash from the participants of the auction and pay to the person who quoted the least bid in the auction after withholding its commission.

Whether the section 269ST is applicable to the Chit Company for the above transactions?

Even if it is applicable, whether each auction is a separate auction or whole chit for the total period considered as a single transaction or an event?

What is meant by single transaction and one event?
Kindly let me know.
Discussion / Re: housing loan interest
« Last post by vsaiyar on April 28, 2017, 10:48:15 AM »
It is very difficult to come out of  the situation once the taxes are not paid as per the declaration made under ids ..... there is a possibility that the department may reopen the assessment and therefore will be subjected to further harassment.

first of all without consulting any professional, your wife has accepted the departments demand and consequently paid the part of the corresponding taxes also... in my opinion there is no way you can come out of the situation except filing a writ in court  or else the chief Commissioner of Income Tax concerned may be approached and situation may be appraised.... As per provisions, there is no possibility...... other than this there is no solution.....
          Whether non payment of advance tax as per the order of Assessing Officer u/s 210(3) attracts penalty and prosecution.  Of late, people are receiving notices from IT department that they should show cause as to why prosecution should not be launched against them for non payment of advance tax during the current financial year when compared to last financial year.

          Before going into intricacies, whether the recovery provisions of incometax act 1961, ie.e sec. 222 to 229 are applicable to the advance tax.  Sec. 221 and 222 starts with the language " When an assessee is in default or deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax,.......

Whether "advance tax" defined in sec. 2(1) amounts to tax as envisaged in the above sentence. Let us examine.. Till 1989, advance tax is not separately defined in incometax act. Therefore, we can say tax includes advance tax also. But however, the position was  changed with effect from 01.04.1989 as advance tax is separately defined u/s 2(1) which was introduced vide finance Act 1987. "TAX" was defined in sec. 2(43). Though, tax was separately defined in sec. 2(43) what made the legislature to bring one more definition in the form of advance tax in sec. 2(1) was neither explained in circular 495 which is explanatory memorandum of finance act, 1987 nor in the finance act itself.  However, it was separately defined. Since Advance tax was separately defined,  we safely conclude that both are not one and the same and are different. Therefore, the recovery measures which are meant for 'TAX" collections are not attracted to "ADVANCE TAX'.

           For advance tax,  a different demand notice is prescribed as per IT Rules 1962. i.e. Form 28 which says non payment of advance tax will attract penal interest u/s 234B and 234C. Other than these interests nothing else is mentioned in form 28 whereas in form 7 which is meant for regular tax collections, interest u/s 220(2), penalty u/s 221(1) and recovery measures sec. 222 to 229 and 232 are all mentioned and it was clearly specified  that non payment of the demand specified in the notice will attract all these interest/penalties besides the demand mentioned therein. 

           On further verification, it is observed that form 28 as existed before 1989 { before the date of 01.04.1989 wherein advance tax was separately defined in sec. 2(1)}, it was clearly mentioned that non payment of advance tax will attract penalty u/s 221(1). However, recovery measures like sec. 222 to 229 and 232 were neither mentioned in the form 27 before 1989 nor amended form 27 which is applicable from 1989.   Whether the omission of penalty u/s 221(1) in form 28 is intentional nor a typo graphical (clerical) mistake. That too, form 28 is statutory form and cannot be changed as per whims and fancies. Therefore, It can safely be concluded that the legislature has intentionally omitted the penalty u/s 221(1) in form 28 as it has brought out statutory interests u/s 234B and 234C and also the definition of advance tax in sec. 2(1).

Thus, it is evident that Advance tax is tax only upto 1989 and thereafter it is separately defined in sec. 2(1) as such it is not tax for any purpose of income tax act, 1961. It can never be recovered by resorting to measures 222 to 229 and 232 nor any penaltyU/s 221(1)  is leviable for non payment of advance taxes as on date.

      since in prosecution provisions ie. 276C also  it is mentioned as tax  only but not advance tax as such non payment of advance tax will not attract prosecution ..

Any contrary view in this regard is whole heartedly welcome. 

Queries and replies relating to black money / forceful declaration of IDS by ITO
« Last post by subhas on March 29, 2017, 09:12:45 AM »

I had booked a property(plot) in 2006 for 1,37,500.00 with monthly payment scheme offer by builder. I paid total amount from 2006 to 2010.The property was booked in my name & payment made by my wife from saving/salary account.
The property was registered in 2014 by builder @ booking amount of Rs 1,37,500.00. But market value in May 2014 when property was registered was Rs 10,95,000.00. All plot pymts were made to builder by cheque & stamp duty was paid for Rs10,95,000.00.
In Aug 2015 , IT Officials sent me letter to provide source of income stating the property is undervalued (registered @Rs137,500.00 instead of market value Rs10,95,000.00.
As i am working abroad , the ITO harassed my wife, trapped us in IDS  & threatened her saying that i will be prosecuted if we dont fill IDS form. Then ITO dictated my wife to fill IDS form on my behalf.
In the IDS form the ITO declared Rs10,95,000.00 - Rs 1,37,500.00 = Rs 9.50 Lacs approx as my undisclosed income. However this amount is the appreciation amount of my plot from 2006 to 2014.
ITO forcefully made my wife to fill form-1  (IDS Form) & passed the order to issue form -2 to make pymt of Rs 4.30 lacs approx as penalty.
Further my wife paid Rs 1.0 Lac in Nov 2017 without consulting me.
I would like to know the procedures withdraw the IDS form
2.collect back Rs 1 lac paid to IT Dept. isuue legal notice against ITO including IPC section under which i can give legal notice for harassment , manhani , torture, threatening for prosecution.

Pls. advise urgently.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10