In the Article earlier displayed @ Income Tax- Machinery Provision vs. Substantive Provision- Analytical Study an attempt has been made to clinically examine and closely understand the recently reported Order of the itat (Ahm.) in the case of Doshi Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Ahm.) (the Order) This Supplement is intended to add to, also […]
The Income Tax Act (the Act) has to be read as an integrated whole. Further, any section / enactment laying down the machinery for computing ‘chargeable- income’ from a transaction (SOURCE OF INCOME) rather ought not but to, – be read and given effect de-hors the ‘charging’ section.
INTRODUCTION Globalisation of Indian economy has been gaining unprecedented momentum in recent years – almost two decades now. In its course, overwhelmingly large number of changes, that too of a significant nature / overreaching in effect , have been taking place; not only in the country’s economic front but also in almost every sphere of […]
ITAT Chennai ORDER in the case of Herve Pomerleau International CCCL Joint Venture Vs. DCIT on Section 167B of Income Tax Act, 1961 which deals with Charge of tax where shares of members in association of persons or body of individuals unknown, etc. makes for a curiously interesting reading.
The matter for discussion attempted herein, – based on independent thoughts and own viewpoints shared hereby, – concerns the ongoing controversy, with presumably no specific direction or clues for guidance in mind; which is as regards the tax implications of section 47(xiiib), rtw sec 47 A(4) (for short, the enactment), of the Income Tax Act […]
1. PREAMBLE This is in continuation of, to serve the purpose of a supplement to, the discussion in the previous posted Article @ Reduction of Equity Share Capital – Tax Implication The two ITAT cases stand out, as a sore thumb. in that, reminds self, of similar instances often come across, sadly for more than one […]
The point of issue, for discussion herein, is whether a reduction of equity share capital by a company, for writing off, in the books of account, the accumulated losses of past years (in a previous year of relevance), is tantamount to a transfer by its shareholder
In the previous Article(s)- HOUSING ASSOCIATION -Mutuality Principle- Supplement I & “Mutuality’ – Doctrine of- A Critical Study it has been explained, at some length, as to why, in view of the applicability of the common law principle of mutuality, claim for tax exemption by a housing association cannot be rightly denied. And, why, by any reasoning or logic, the SC Judgment in Bangalore Club Case is not to be regarded as a ‘precedent’ (binding authority) for doing so.
Housing Association (HA) as mandated by the special property law, governing ‘UNITS’ (i.e. Flats or Apartments) – namely, the special legislative enactment by state (s) – is an Association (of Persons). It is formed and constituted exclusively by purchasers /owners of the Units for all purposes. Such legal ownership in a building project, unlike in an independent and exclusively owned house property
The point of issue chosen for a study herein is the applicability of the common law’- (as opposed to legislation, also dubbed as man-made law)- Principle, in legal parlance known as the Doctrine Of Mutuality (the DoM), to any entity , being an Association of Persons; such as, social clubs in general, and so called housing associations in particular.
