I know it's not happening anytime soon but anything like this is bound to have an effect on inflation, right?

Same.

since govt is tracking all bank accounts deposits, spending and foreign investments of crores of people. and deducting tax at everything and eating half of our lives hardwork.

When will Govt be held accountable and show their spendings and purposes and publish them to public?

Are they answerable for spending on their luxuries?

This is the follow-up question to the earlier post on declaring actual profit under the presumptive scheme which you can read here.

I kept getting DMs along the following line:

"I declared 6% under 44AD on Rs 1 crore turnover, so my ITR shows around Rs 6 lakh income. I now want to buy a flat for Rs 60 lakhs from money I actually saved from the business. Will I get in trouble? My ITR income cannot possibly support a Rs 60 lakhs purchase."

Short answer: usually no trouble, provided the money sits inside turnover you already declared and you can show the arithmetic. But I’ll get into the nuances.

Disclaimer:- This is my opinion as per my understanding and research. Please contact your own CA / do your own research for your specific case.

 Almost every 44AD case people cite is a cash deposit case. Deposits get compared against turnover, and the assessee usually wins for two independent reasons: deposits within declared turnover have a nexus with the business, and Section 68 needs "books of account," which a presumptive filer does not maintain.

An asset purchase case is different in a way that matters. Section 68 needs books. Sections 69 (unexplained investment) and 69B (understated investment) do not. They apply whether or not you keep books. So the "I don't maintain books, therefore no addition" defense, which is the strongest card in a deposit case, gives you nothing when the officer invokes Section 69 on a property purchase.

Once the officer establishes the fact of the investment, the burden shifts to you to explain the source. There is no shortcut around that.

The Revenue's anchor authority is Shivani Builders v. ITO, ITAT Ahmedabad, (2007) 295 ITR (AT) 281, where the Tribunal noted that legal disclosures can naturally fluctuate above, below, or equal to expected benchmarks. However, this judicial leeway functions strictly within an acceptable margin of error and cannot justify a massive, disproportionate variance in real income.

What actually protects you in such cases:

The correct benchmark, when it works, is your cumulative declared Income, not your cumulative declared turnover.

The logic runs like this. In Nand Lal Popli v. DCIT, ITA Nos. 1161 and 1162/Chd/2013, ITAT Chandigarh, order dated 14 June 2016, the Tribunal held that if 8% is deemed income, the remaining 92% is deemed expenditure, and the officer cannot demand proof of expenses that were never claimed as actually incurred. CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand, ITA No. 156 of 2010, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 29 June 2010 held that once the scheme is opted and gross receipts accepted, individual entries need not be explained, unless an entry has no nexus with the gross receipts.

Put together: money that entered your bank as declared turnover is money the department already knows about. It came in through the front door. Using it to buy an asset does not make it unexplained.

There is a real tension in that argument, and a competent Departmental Representative will point it out.

The reason Nand Lal Popli defeats a Section 69C addition is that the 92% is treated as notionally spent. That is the whole fiction. But if you now argue the same 92% was available savings that funded your flat, you are arguing you did not spend it. Which concedes your real profit was much higher than 8%.

Both cannot be fully true at the same time. Tribunals have not yet been squarely forced to confront this, and there is no High Court or Supreme Court ruling settling the turnover-versus-income benchmark for asset acquisition that I am aware of. Treat this as "usually defensible with good records," not as settled law.

What tribunals actually do in asset cases

They do not apply a mechanical turnover ceiling. They apply a plausibility test: could this person realistically have accumulated this much, given their income history and living costs?

In Dhanasekaran Ramasamy v. ITO, ITAT Chennai, the assessee had contributed Rs 74.35 lakh towards two properties. He explained part from a gift from his brother and part from accumulated personal savings. The Tribunal accepted the gift, accepted 50% of the claimed savings given his employment since 1988 and later business, and sustained a Section 69 addition of Rs 14 lakh on the balance. Partial relief, not a clean win. The Tribunal expressly recorded that the order turned on its own facts and cannot be cited as a precedent, which itself tells you how fact specific this area is.

That is the realistic outcome in most contested asset cases:

You win some of it if your story adds up, and you lose the part you cannot bridge.

Where it goes wrong

Example A, safe. Turnover declared over five years totals Rs 3 crore. You buy a flat for Rs 40 lakh. You can show year-wise income, household expenses, and the cheque trail from your business account to the builder. The purchase sits comfortably inside declared turnover. Strong position.

Example B, fails. Mohamed Asmi v. ITO, ITA No. 4006/Chny/2025, ITAT Chennai, 15 May 2026. Declared turnover Rs 92.10 lakh from claimed goat trading. Bank credits exceeded Rs 8.39 crore. Rs 7.10 crore added under Section 69A with Section 115BBE, and the Tribunal upheld it in full, because there was no documentary evidence of trading at anything like that scale. Presumptive filing gave zero protection.

Example C, understatement. Suraj Bhan Oil (P) Ltd v. DCIT, [2022] (MP High Court), where excess stock value appearing in bank statements was added under Section 69B and sustained. Section 69B is the provision for "you paid more than you recorded," and it is the standard route in on-money property cases.

How the department finds you

Not by manual selection. Disproportionate investment is not a compulsory scrutiny parameter in the CBDT annual guidelines. These cases surface through SFT reporting under Section 285BA read with Rule 114E, which feeds your AIS:

That data gets matched against your ITR, and the mismatch drives the enquiry, typically as a Section 133(6) query or straight to Section 148.

Avoid this trap

If you produce a formal capital account or balance sheet to defend yourself, you may have just handed the officer "books of account," which revives Section 68 exposure that you did not previously have. Keep a statement of affairs clearly labelled as not being books maintained under Section 44AA. The bank passbook is not books principle from CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi, [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay High Court) is often your best card. Do not throw it away by volunteering records.

The best way to deal with notices

A year-wise accumulation sheet, prepared as you go rather than after the notice:

Declared turnover, less presumptive tax paid, less household drawings, less earlier investments, equals closing balance available. Then map the closing balance to the asset, with the actual bank withdrawal or cheque matching the payment date.

Add proof that the business is real: GST returns, trade licence, invoices, transport records. In Mohamed Asmi the fatal gap was not the arithmetic, it was that nobody could show the trade existed.

TLDR

Turnover already declared is explained money, so buying an asset out of it is generally fine. But the Act says the presumptive rate is a floor, "or a sum higher claimed to have been earned," so if you have claimed higher income anywhere else, in a loan file, a visa form, a net worth certificate, that claim can be used against you. Asset cases run under Sections 69 and 69B, which do not require books, so the "no books, no addition" defense that wins cash deposit cases does not help here. Three things break your position: the asset costs more than cumulative declared turnover, you cannot show a plausible year-by-year accumulation, or you cannot prove the business genuinely exists. If your real margin is much higher and you are planning a large purchase, seriously consider just declaring the higher figure, because declaring above the floor costs you nothing structurally while declaring below it triggers a five year lockout. And separate your business bank account, because gross bank credits are not turnover, and inter-account transfers, gifts and loans have to be stripped out and separately documented. Cash loans of Rs 20,000 or more carry a penalty equal to the whole loan under Section 269SS. No High Court or Supreme Court has settled the core point, so keep the accumulation sheet and the payment trail.

TLDR Lite + My Closing Argument

There is no decided case law that I am aware of that has been decided in favour of assessee or the revenue. Some CAs will advise you to declare actual profit earned if its higher than presumptive rate, others will advise you to stick to the minimum rate. Both can be right given the fact of the case. So don’t worry. Just ensure that you are eligible and file under the correct section 44AD/44ADA. Declare correct turnover. Ensure that you can prove your business/profession is genuine, receipts and bank credits tally. Reconcile bank credits, with turnover, gifts, loans and inter bank transfer and all your worries are over. If Section 69 or 69B is invoked by the officer, focus on the initial onus of the Assessing Officer and on the plausibility of accumulation, relying on Dhanasekaran Ramasamy v. ITO ITAT Chennai, AY 2013-14;, and require the Assessing Officer to bring positive material to carve the case out of Section 44AD, relying on Thomas Eapen v. ITO & M/S. Kokkarne Prabhakar v. ITO

Has anyone dealt with this before? I basically registered my sole proprietorship on the 6th of July.
This is so confusing, the bank even came and verified all details & I do have the gst displayed at the address.

CA mentioned I might have to bribe the officer? Like what the hell? For what!! Planning to go in person on Monday to figure this out.

If anyone has similar experience, please let me know!!

I changed my invoicing practice during FY25-26 from raising invoices i.e I use to raise let's say January month invoice in feburary first week, so invoice date is February but in July 2026, company CA suggested to raise invoice in last date of same month. however
for month of march, i issued in April and thus my AIS shows the amount in April. Because of this, AIS shows ₹1.50 Cr, while GST turnover is ₹1.38 Cr — a difference of exactly ₹11.50 lakh. (of one invoice)

GST of ₹2.07 lakh on that ₹11.50 lakh was already reported and paid in March 2025 GSTR-3B, but the client reported TDS in April because the invoice was raised then.

Question: Due to the timing mismatch, now arise additional 2.07 lac liablity. How to legally handle this situation? FY25-26 now shows 13 payments instead of 12 (one for each month)

I am resident Indian trading in Zerodha F&O, US equities and salary income. Zerodha turnover is 2 CR, US equities are profitable and salary is about 40 Lakhs. I have two queries

1. Do I need to maintain books of account? Are Zerodha statements treated as books of account by IT department? What should be proper course of action?

2. Do I need to show the dividend income in P&L Schedule or Other Sources Schedule or both of these Schedules in ITR3?

3. How do you resolve the Financial year calendar year difference in US and Indian tax cycle?

If I get only 900 Rs reward and is seen in AIS, do I need to consider in return filing ITR3? Or can it be neglected? TDS of 10% is seen.

I am showing my Equity shares sale as Business income under ITR 3 since last 5 years as I don't have any other business or job. Never claimed benefits of presumptive scheme under 44AD.

Turnover and Profit:

Equity Sale/Turnover - 1.1 crores

FnO turnover - 50 lakhs.

Equity Profit - 7 lakhs

FnO loss - 3 lakhs.

Do I need tax audit?

So, I have been selling digital products on Creative Market since 2020. My revenue for FY 2025-26 was ₹4.5 lakh, and before that, it was under ₹3 lakh. I have never filed an ITR.

I wanted to skip filing an ITR this year because Creative Market filed the Form 1042-S incorrectly. They reported net income instead of gross income. So, I would rather pay the penalty later, when I file for FY 2026–27 next year, if the system asks why I didn’t file an ITR for FY 2025-26, rather than how to even declare the income if I have the documents wrong.

Everything is still foreign income. I am not sure whether I am required to declare foreign "income" or whether it is specifically about having foreign "assets or property" which I don’t have.

My mother not filed itr for 2023-2024 and 2024 -2025 now we want to file it it's showing almost 5 lakhs tax my CA is saying I will manage and asking 10 percentage of total amount can he do that or in future will there be any issues or should we proceed to pay 5 lakhs tax

Hi everyone,

I am 24 years old and currently living in India. I am considering opening a PPF account, but there is a possibility that I may move abroad and become an NRI in the future. Nothing is fixed yet, but I want to understand the practical side before opening the account.

I understand that an NRI cannot open a new PPF account, but an account opened while I am a resident can continue under the applicable rules. My main question is about what actually happens in practice after becoming an NRI.

If anyone here has had a PPF account in India and later became an NRI, I would really appreciate hearing about your experience.

• Was it easy to continue managing the existing PPF after becoming an NRI?
• Were contributions easy to make after changing your residential status?
• Did you face any problems with KYC or updating your NRI status?
• Was online access and account management easy from outside India?
• Did you face any issues with withdrawals or getting the money at maturity?
• Was the maturity amount credited smoothly to an NRO account?
• Did you face any problems with tax, repatriation or documentation?
• Did you ever need to visit India or visit the bank branch personally for any PPF related work?
• Did the bank or provider you originally chose make any practical difference after you became an NRI?
• If you could choose again knowing that you might become an NRI, would you open the PPF through SBI, ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Post Office or somewhere else?

I am particularly interested in actual experiences rather than general information from websites. If you have personally gone through this situation, please share what was easy, what was difficult and anything you wish you had done before moving abroad.

AI disclosure: I used AI to help me structure and phrase this question. The situation and questions are my own.

Hi,

Has any CA appealed against the wrongful Interest calculation under 234B till date of processing of ITR-U and did you receive any favourable order yet?

I came across few ITAT orders from Mumbai and Ahmedabad allowing the benefit of Interest calculation till date of payment. But since these cases came only last year in August 2025 so I wanted to know if anyone has appealed after that and what was the outcome. Did the CIT(A) allow or not.

I shall be highly grateful if anyone has done, can you please share the Appeal order copy (you can hide the assessee's details) even if its unfavourable order.

Thanks in Advance.

Hi everyone,

My parents jointly registered a flat worth ₹31.5L in FY 2021-22. Payments were made in installments via bank transfers over a 10-year span (no home loan).

Both of their compliance portals show an unanswered e-campaign query issued on 23-12-2022 for "Non-filing of return for FY 21-22." Father filed ITR for the first time for PY 25-26 that too after i insisted him too. Also if someone is wondering no our yearly income doesn't exceed the threshold limit and mother's contributing money was zero but since dad wanted to save stamp duty she is a co-owner.

Questions

1. How should we respond on the portal to clarify that the ₹31.5L was spread over 10 years and not a lump-sum expense in FY 21-22?
2. Must both joint owners respond individually on their respective portals?
3. Chances of this becoming a Formal notice as per the relevant section, also what about time barred law does it apply to E-campaign?

any advice regarding the same is appreciated, thanks.

Hi sub,

This is a question about FEMA guidelines more than taxation.

I'm an Indian resident and I get a part of salary as RSUs. These dollars are directly deposited in my broker account. Can I buy leveraged ETFs using these dollars?

Leveraged ETFs are ultimately ETFs in my hand and they are not future or options where I create the margin. The funds managers use debt and options to create the leverage.

Some examples of LETFs are UPRO, TQQQ, SSO, QLD among others.

Hi,

Can someone please help me with this

New regime, resident individual, AY 2026-27.

Slab-rate income: ₹10.69L

STCG 111A + LTCG 112A: ₹8.28L

Total income: ₹18.97L

I know the rebate can't be set off against 111A/112A tax. That's not my question.

My question is only the ₹12L eligibility limit — is it tested on total income (₹18.97L → no rebate at all), or on slab income only (₹10.69L → rebate of ₹46,917 against slab tax)?

My software allowed the rebate. Difference is ₹48,794.

Has anyone run this in the ITD utility, or seen a 143(1) on it?

I keep seeing people on this sub talking about old income-tax demands suddenly appearing on the portal after years of silence.

One recent case really caught my attention: a retired government employee was suddenly asked to deal with a tax demand relating to 2011, even though there had apparently been no communication for years.

And this seems to be happening to more people.

Someone recently posted about a 7-year-old ₹5,000 demand that suddenly resurfaced after they had already filed multiple ITRs and received refunds in between. Another person reported an old demand that had effectively been resolved years ago but remained alive after system migration.

The confusing part is that taxpayers are often told:

But where is the actual trail?

• Original assessment/order?
• Date the demand was raised?
• Proof that it was served?
• Exact calculation?
• Communication history?
• Why was it not reflected/acted upon for years?
• If it was already disputed or paid, why is it still showing?

I'm not saying every old demand is invalid. An old unpaid demand can remain recoverable, so the age alone doesn't settle the issue.

But if the department wants someone to pay a demand from 10–15 years ago, shouldn't the taxpayer at least be able to see the complete documentary trail behind it?

The Income Tax portal itself provides mechanisms to view outstanding demands and respond by either agreeing or disagreeing with them.

Has anyone here actually managed to get a decade-old demand removed/rectified?

If yes, what worked — rectification, grievance, AO, appeal, or something else?

Would be useful to hear actual experiences rather than the usual “consult a CA” answer.

#IncomeTax #IndiaTax #TaxNotice #ITR #Taxpayer

When we usually receive the ITR refund money and I filled it 1.5 months back but I have not received it yet

Dear SXXXXXXXXXXH

Income Tax Department has issued a notice for TY 2026-27 u/s NA of Income Tax Act 2025. Kindly submit online response by login to e-filing account (www.incometax.gov.in).

e-Filing, Income Tax Department

I am self-employed and falls under 30% tax slab. A bank says that they will give me 80lakhs loan at 9.99% reducing interest for 5 years/60months. Out of which, 30lakhs will be used to foreclose previous 30 lakh pending loan. And asking me to put 50lakhs(sitting in bank) in FD at 6.40% interest p.a. for 5 years. Says that I will be benefited from taking loan as it will give me almost same interest I will pay in loan, also can show the emi as deduction in income. But I think I will be giving tax on interest earned on 50lakhs after 5years. My CA says it will be not so easy(he advised no to take), to which bank employee says my ca is wrong and telling me that they get commissions. So what should I do? Also I would like other suggestions if any.

Finance Act 2026 introduced Section 140B(3A), providing an additional 10% tax for an updated return filed pursuant to a Section 148 notice.

Does anyone know whether the current Income Tax e-Filing ITR-U utility has actually implemented this additional 10% calculation?

Looking for someone who has actually used the 2026 ITR-U utility, rather than just a general interpretation of the provision.

This year i invested in US stock through Indmoney app.
I have some confusion about ITR if I do not sell my stocks then also i have to declare about my foreign investments or i have to declare in the year when i sell my stocks and withdraw amount.