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 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...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constituted transfer triggering capital gains. The tribunal held no taxa...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that tenancy supported by rent receipts, bills, and agreements cannot be treated as a sham. It upheld exemption ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that transfer took place in 2000 upon execution of a registered development agreement and receipt of full consid...
The Supreme Court examined whether shares received on amalgamation can be taxed as business income when held as stock-in-trade. It ruled that tax arises only if the substitution results in a real, commercially realizable gain, not a mere statutory replacement.
The Tribunal found that the JDA did not satisfy the statutory requirements of section 53A since possession was given only for limited development and no consideration was paid. Consequently, no transfer occurred under section 2(47), and capital gains could not be taxed for that year. The addition of ₹3,65,904 was directed to be deleted.
ACIT Vs Ashwin S. Bhalekar Beamon Chambers (ITAT Mumbai) Claim of the assessee that extinguishment of rights in the capital asset is a transfer of capital asset and capital gains and consequent allowance of claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. The facts clearly show that the extinguishment of assessee’s right in Flat […]
ITAT held that Stock- in-trade can be considered as transferred only in the year in which the assessee has executed the sale deed transferring the stock-in-trade and not when the assessee has given stock-in-trade for joint development to the builder. As already held in the above cases, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) would apply only to the capital asset and not to stock-in-trade.
Amount paid to a partner upon retirement after taking accounts and upon deduction of liabilities did not involve an element of transfer within meaning of section 2(47) and not chargeable to income tax.
Conversion of cumulative and compulsory convertible preference shares(CCPS) into equity shares cannot be treated as ‘transfer’ under section 2(47) and no capital gain is to be computed upon such conversion.
Bombay High Court has held that the mere fact that an agreement for sale of property is registered does not make it a conveyance, if such agreements is conditional and possession is not transferred to purchaser.
K. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The development agreement implied that assessee did permit the developer to enter into the premises and to do all the necessary things for construction of apartments. Some of the agreement holders also sold the flats in semi-finished condition or in fully developed condition, whereas few like assessee retained […]
Designed with the advantages of a flexible organisational structure, perpetual succession, limited liability and tax efficient distribution of profits to partners, Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) have become one of the most popular modes of doing business in India. With greater clarity in the government’s policy towards LLPs and efforts to promote foreign funding in LLPs, […]
DCIT Vs Hema Mohanlal Divyasree (ITAT Cochin) We have carefully perused the JDA entered between the assessee and the developer. As per the JDA (in page 3 para 4), the construction should have completed and the share of build up area marked for the assessee ought to have been handed over within 36 months of obtaining necessary […]
