Section 143(1) intimation is not an assessment and no question of change of opinion

3 Comments

1. swapna says:

   I got notice under section 143(1)(a) as i have shown less income..that is due to my employers contribution to PF. Instead of showing it under deduction I have already deducted from Income from Salary head. so I have revised my return by adding that income.But i have not resonded online to e proceeding. As I have said already that I have revised my return before submitting online response. but now when I gong to response as “Agree” it is showing message that you have already revised your return.. now I can’t able to submit my online response.. Is it OK ???whether it will create problem while processing my return…plZ awaiting for your reply..

     Reply

   August 14, 2017 at 2:59 pm
2. vswami says:

   ADD on:
   The subject matter of the ‘sale and purchase’ transaction in the instant case is prima facie a ‘property’ in the nature and having the peculiar characteristics of so called ‘FLAT’, and for use as ‘office.’, in a building complex . As such, for all purposes, including ‘transfer’ of the attendant property rights , the transaction is to be taken as governed by the Maharashtra State special law, known as MOFA (rw the rules framed there under) , read together with the MCSA applicable to co-operative societies formed and registered under, and in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Under the scheme of things, purchaser of a flat is required to be admitted as ‘member’ of the registered society, by issue of a ‘Share Certificate’, under the name and seal of the society. And, on a resale, as mandated by the law, the transferee is entitled to be admitted as member, in place / substitution of his transferor, provided the society is satisfied that the transferor –member is ‘prima facie’ eligible to A transfer of his “Shares and interest in the Capital / Property of the Society”.
   Obviously, that is the reason why, having due regard to the above stated procedural legal formalities requiring compliance, the transferor-company ,- while objecting to the impugned action of the AO UNDER SECTON 147 (RW SECTION 148), has pleaded to the effect that pending compliance with the formality of transfer of its “Shares”, there could be no ‘transfer’ , so as to attract taxation. Needs to be noted, In the HC judgment , in paragraph 2, explaining the transferor- company’s case, it has been observed “…that the petitioner had also recorded, confirmed and assured the bank that it would take ALL STEPS FOR TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE SHARE CERTIFICATES on or before September 30, 1997”. (FONT supplied)
   The HC has not gone into this particular aspect any further; that is, presumably because it was not considered necessary for deciding the main issue on hand, rightly so. Be that as it may, now that as a result / in consequence of the SC judgment the matter is remitted back to the ITAT, it may be hoped that also the above referred aspect, apart from quite a few other related and equally crucial ones, will be duly gone into in-depth, in deciding the entire matter, ‘on merits’ as directed, in a wholesome manner.

     Reply

   December 4, 2015 at 9:44 am
3. vswami says:

   For a proper and complete understanding of the SC Judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri’s case, cited and followed in the above now reported Zuari Estate Development’s case, it is imperative to go through the full text of that earlier case noted to be available @ judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=29101

   Comments based on independent viewpoints have been already shared on Facebook.

     Reply

   December 3, 2015 at 2:18 pm