Income Tax : Bombay High Court has held that the mere fact that an agreement for sale of property is registered does not make it a conveyance, ...
Income Tax : Designed with the advantages of a flexible organisational structure, perpetual succession, limited liability and tax efficient dis...
Income Tax : We see many big business houses run by second or third generation families with different ideologies or intending to diversify the...
Income Tax : Under the existing provisions of the Act, conversion of security from one form to another is regarded as transfer for the purpose ...
Income Tax : Under clause (vib) of section 47 of the Income-tax Act any capital asset transferred by the demerged company to the resulting comp...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court ruled that an unregistered Joint Venture Agreement without actual transfer of possession or consideration co...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that Section 45(5A) applies prospectively and cannot govern JDAs executed before 01.04.2018. Capital gains fro...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a share transfer without consideration constituted taxable capital gains. The Tribunal held that genuine fam...
Income Tax : The issue involved taxing capital gains from a development agreement in multiple years. The court held the same income cannot be t...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered s...
The Madras High Court ruled that an unregistered Joint Venture Agreement without actual transfer of possession or consideration could not amount to a transfer under Section 2(47). The Court held that no capital gains tax liability arose for the relevant assessment year.
ITAT Bangalore held that Section 45(5A) applies prospectively and cannot govern JDAs executed before 01.04.2018. Capital gains from older development agreements must be taxed under the law applicable in the year of transfer.
The issue was whether a share transfer without consideration constituted taxable capital gains. The Tribunal held that genuine family realignment is not taxable.
The issue involved taxing capital gains from a development agreement in multiple years. The court held the same income cannot be taxed twice and set aside the addition subject to verification.
The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered sale deed triggers tax liability even if consideration is disputed.
The issue was whether a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constituted transfer triggering capital gains. The tribunal held no taxable transfer occurred as rights were unsettled due to partition disputes and lack of finality.
The Tribunal held that tenancy supported by rent receipts, bills, and agreements cannot be treated as a sham. It upheld exemption under Section 54F on surrender of tenancy rights.
The Tribunal held that transfer took place in 2000 upon execution of a registered development agreement and receipt of full consideration, not in 2008 when the sale deed was executed.
The ITAT held that for a builder following the project completion method, income arises on handing over possession and not merely on registration of sale agreement. The addition of entire sale consideration under Section 2(47) was ruled unsustainable.
The High Court held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines. ITAT’s demand of TCS, interest, and penalty was set aside.
