I approached a C.A since i have 23k loss @ 1L turnover in FnO last financial year… he said clearly my case requires an Audit where all acounts will be audited and then final PnL is done etc etc its a costly process(25k) and a tideous one since clarification of all transactions have to be done etc etc, since i donot plan to do FnO again so wont claim this loses… he suggested 2 options
Donot report FnO at all, if & when the ITR notice comes you can relinquish/refile these transactions as there is no Tax evasion here…
Since my turnover is so small he said assume you have profits under section 44 of 6% and pay 30% tax on it which is approx 2k, which means i also dont need to keep books of account etc all compliance burden goes away…
Question is which option is better ?
I am tending towards 2nd one as we are filling the FnO transactions atleast…
I really wish ITR people to abolish this law of Auditing for such low turnovers for compilance purpose spending extra 25K to a C.A just for filling, which is equal to my total loss is horribly wrong in theory itself…
Are you saying go for Audit?, if yes then he said its long and lengthy process and requires all account transactions to be corrected assesed… plus the cost of doing it is equal to my loss
Sorry sir, you are sending confusing pictures, the first one clearly states turnover upto 2cr , the second image confuses the same statement…
It will be better if you write your intentions as CA are recommending tax audits so are Quicko etc… not sure where are clear tax people writing these FAQs from, so direct link to tax rules can only be considered as truth…
Give your documents. I shall file your returns and get it processed.
May be it’s time for me to monetise my posts here.
Mods delete this if this against forum rules.
I like your offer, but for now i will just take the IT section which says i dont need a tax audit… as all research points to people within 1rs to 2cr turnover in FnO with less than 6% of profit(which also includes loss) are supposed to be audited…
On serious note would be really helpful with links if you have found otherwise… else it becomes hearsay…
Sorry i dont know abt that, nor know how/where to check, but this is not about any person here, as the saying goes " In God we trust, everything else must bring data"
Just trying to prove objectively/scientifically one’s point… some IT sections where this is written/interpreted will provide evidence thats it…
…or whenever possible,
do provide references/links to back-up one’s statements/claims. (otherwise we are just another “rando on the internet”.)
Agreed that cases where interepretation / case-law is involved,
then perhaps there is no single obvious reference one can point to.
Oh that’s happenning already even if one is not actively trying.
These topic-threads of discussion often show-up in online searches for financial queries.
And interested folks often reach out individually for further clarification
to any contact-info one has provided in one’s profile page.
It’s interpretation of provisions of the Act. As simple as that. No CA refers external links. What clear tax writes or any other person writes is also just their interpretation. Why believe that which comes from a faceless person? We refer only bare Act for interpretation.
I don’t think you ask doctor links for the medicine he provides. Do you?
Well, i for one have a very low opinion of these online “consultation/assistance CA firms”.
I do not want to call them frauds, but that’s pretty much what i think of them.
Often flip-floping back-n-forth when asked to justify their claims.
The generic content out there (which they post for SEO/lead-gen) often misses corner-cases and folks who go by such second-hand info miss relevant details applicable in their specific scenario
In that context,
i find that one way a CA can differentiate themself
and stand-out from this crowd of scamster-CAs,
is to better share information and first-hand references wherever possible.
Most of the folks i know of who trust their CAs
and go to them year after year
have found CAs who do this.
They provide references/links to the relevant section/clause/provisio or circular.
(usually upon request for clarification)
But, hey maybe that’s not scalable?
or perhaps there’s another target-market that other CAs pursue
which doesn’t value transparency as much?
Oh absolutely.
This forum is a great lead-gen.
If you are open to it, please do add some contact info in your TradingQnA profile.
(website/phone/email/chat/book-meeting-slot)
I too was confused with the same sentence earlier but I think its a 3 condition statement upto 2 cr with “and”
it says if you profit is less than 6% AND
you opted for presumptive tax last 5 year’s AND
your income is more than basic exemption
So you have to fulfill all 3 for audit.
Like if profit is less than 6% but u didn’t opted for presumptive tax for last 5 year then no need tax audit upto 2cr and i think same with income as well. You need to do tax audit if your profit is less than 6% AND you opted for presumption tax AND your income is more than basic exemption.
I am sorry if i made a mistake, Please correct me if I am wrong. Its confusing sometimes with how sentences are made.
