It has been brought to the notice of Board that notices under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) were generated in respect of certain invalid returns of the assessees filed for the Assessment Year 2017-18 through CASS Cycle 2018. As the scrutiny of such returns will pose a challenge for the AO and is bad in law, I am directed to state that Assessing Officers shall drop the proceedings u/s 143(2) of the Act in such cases and reopen the same by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act.
a. For the purpose of determining minimum threshold of margins to be collected by members from their clients, cut off time shall be kept as 5:00 b. Risk Parameter File (RPF) to be generated at cut-off time shall be applied on clients’ EOD portfolio for the purpose of determining minimum threshold of margin to be collected from clients by members.
The following norms are prescribed for Debt ETFs/Index Funds to be adopted by all AMCs: (a) The constituents of the index shall be aggregated at issuer level. (b) The index shall have a minimum of 8 issuers. (c) No single issuer shall have more than 15% weight in the index. (d) The rating of the constituents of the index shall be investment grade. (e) The constituents of the index shall have a defined credit rating and defined maturity as specified in the index methodology.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 68 by considering the share application money received by assessee as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
Penalty U/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is leviable for failure to get accounts audited where the turnover / gross receipts exceeds the prescribed limit. Many times it happens that the turnover as per the regular books of accounts remains under the prescribed limit and as such the assessee do not gets the accounts audited U/s. 44AB.
20 November, 2019 was to last date to file Form GSTR 3B for month of October 2019. The data released by CBIC indicate that returns filed on last two days were 11.52 lakh and 14.36 lakhs where as cumulative figure till 20.11.2019 is 60.91 lakh indicating that bulk of returns are filed on last 2 days or so, of course putting tremendous pressure on the GST network resulting in GSTN system even not functioning for some time on last day.
Assessee had filed appeal in manual form and such appeal had been filed within prescribed time under the Act, merely because assessee had not filed appeal in electronic form, assessee’s appeal could not be dismissed on technical grounds that too during transition period prescribed by CBDT.
Concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee has to be in the income tax return filed by it. Even if some discrepancies were found during the survey resulting in surrender of income by the assessee, once the assessee has declared the said income in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, then the penalty cannot be levied on the surmises, conjectures and possibilities that the assessee would not have disclosed the income but for survey.
M/s. Bhardwaj Construction Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) As regards to Ground Nos. 11 and 12, relating to disallowance on account of depreciation claimed at Rs. 33,726/- on Cars, the Ld. AR submitted that this disallowance is without any basis. The Ld. AR further submitted that the vehicles have been used for business purposes and […]
Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2)(AB) on the ground of non approval of expenditure claimed by the DSIR was allowable as prior to the amendment, i.e., upto 30.06.2016, the pre-requisite for allow ability of deduction was approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. Moreover, AO disallowed the claim without due application of mind.
