23 April 2012
dear Sir, i have filed 3 returns of my assessees u/s 44 AD IE itr 4S who receive commission / brokerage from General Insurance agency before proposed amendment as 44AD applicable to above assessees. i have gone through ICAI's guidance note and issues on tax audit and it says income of general insurance agents and commission agents as income from business.
hence we filed above returns u/s 44AD OFCOUSE by showing 60to 70% income instead of 8% only. now it is proposed to amend 44AD to make this not applicable to commission/ brokerage with retrospective effect.
we believed it is applicable to above assessees before proposed amendment.
Now what is the fate of above assessee,s? IS it fair to make amendment retrospectively? What are the consequences ofthose who have filed u/s 44AD? ARE THEY liable to penalty for non maintainance of books of a/c? can we go for appeal against penalty for non maintanance of books and chances of winning ?
23 April 2012
no clarification is yet made by it dept. SO AT PRESENT NO NEED TO WORRY. LET BUDGET BE PASSED IN PARLIAMENT AND THEN IT DEPT WILL BRING OUT SOME CLARIFICATION.
23 April 2012
how deptt dealt when any provision is amended with retrospective effect. any case laws.and suggest me how to explain situation to client that he should not think that it is our fault.thank you
24 April 2012
DEPT FOLLOWS THE INSTRUCTIONS, CIRCULARS, OR NOTIFICICATION ISSUED BY BOARD. WE CAN ALWAYS SHOW THE CLIENTS THAT THE RELEVANT INSTRUCTIONS, CIRCULARS, OR NOTIFICATIONS OF THE BOARD AND TELL THEM THAT IT IS NOT OUR FAULT
Querist :
Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
24 April 2012
i received e mail from direct taxes committee (ie from CA Mukta K . VERMA)THAT above issue has been included in the post budget memorandum of ICAI AND SUBMITTED TO the Ministry of Finance. thank you for your suggestion sir.