thanks for getting confused by me....
Well i am not CA or MBA in financial subjects...
1. Mr.X has loss (say 3 L) and his turnover is 50L (less than 2 CR).
2. Now in order to avoid tax audit cost which is around 15k, you are suggesting him to opt for choosing presumptive tax...well so one has to show profit of 6% ( or 8% ).. means he has to pay tax of minimum 10% of 6% of TO..
6% of TO comes around 3L , so you are showing profit of 3L where as you are in loss of 3L (this is called manipulation for me, this may not be manipulation by law, but by etics of doing business)
since X shows profit of 3L , X going to pay 30K income tax.
also X not carrying forward loss, which also has potential of saving another 30K (assume that X is in profit in any one of 7 upcoming years)
Please note that this is what my understanding about , i may be partly wrong, or whole wrong... where you are finding me wrong, correct me ( plz dont just tell that i am wrong)
Well i am not CA or MBA in financial subjects...
1. Mr.X has loss (say 3 L) and his turnover is 50L (less than 2 CR).
2. Now in order to avoid tax audit cost which is around 15k, you are suggesting him to opt for choosing presumptive tax...well so one has to show profit of 6% ( or 8% ).. means he has to pay tax of minimum 10% of 6% of TO..
6% of TO comes around 3L , so you are showing profit of 3L where as you are in loss of 3L (this is called manipulation for me, this may not be manipulation by law, but by etics of doing business)
since X shows profit of 3L , X going to pay 30K income tax.
also X not carrying forward loss, which also has potential of saving another 30K (assume that X is in profit in any one of 7 upcoming years)
Please note that this is what my understanding about , i may be partly wrong, or whole wrong... where you are finding me wrong, correct me ( plz dont just tell that i am wrong)
Last edited: