Income Tax : The issue involves a subscription amount of Rs. 1 Crores, with a dividend rate of 0.10% over a tenure of 20 years. This brief exam...
Income Tax : Unlock the complexities of development rights and their tax implications under India's Income Tax Act, 1961. Delve into Section 56...
Income Tax : Budget 2023 brings non-resident investors within the ambit of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act to eliminate tax avoidance possibilit...
Income Tax : Detailed analysis of Chandarani N. Goyal Vs ITO case where Mumbai ITAT ruled that money received as a security deposit, if refunde...
Income Tax : Explore ITAT Chennai's ruling in Smt. Chandrasekaran Valarmathi vs. ITO case. Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act won'...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of expenditure towards helper allowance claimed as deduction u/s. 10(14)(i) of the Income Tax ...
Income Tax : Explore the ITAT Mumbai decision in Rekha Singh vs ITO, directing the consideration of stamp duty value on the date of allotment f...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act on account of difference between circle rate and actual amo...
Analysis of ITAT Chennai’s decision on taxing share premium: ACIT Vs Luncar Finance Pvt. Ltd. A focus on already taxed income in the hands of Investor Company
Unlock the complexities of development rights and their tax implications under India’s Income Tax Act, 1961. Delve into Section 56(2)(x) to understand the treatment of development rights as immovable property or capital asset. Explore legal definitions, case law, and the intricate interplay of tax provisions in this comprehensive guide.
ITAT Pune held that as per third proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where the stamp value of the immovable property is disputed by the assessee on the ground mentioned in section 50C(2), the AO may refer the valuation of such property to the Valuation Officer. Accordingly, matter remanded.
ITAT Mumbai held that as conditions in second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) satisfied, stamp duty as on the date of agreement would be compared with agreement value. Accordingly, since the stamp duty value is less than the agreement value, addition unsustainable.
ITAT Kolkata held that AO failed to make required enquiries to go into the question of valuation of shares given by the accountant for the purpose of assessment of income as per provisions of section 56(2)(viib). Accordingly, revisionary power under section 263 rightly invoked.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for transfer of property and ate of registration is not same, the stamp duty value on the date of allotment is to be taken.
Vinit Kumar Vs DCIT – ITAT Delhi clarified the application of Section 56(2)(vii) on properties purchased for more than the circle rate.
ITAT Indore held that the deeming fiction created in section 50C cannot be extended to the provision of section 69 or 69B or any other of the Act in the case of purchaser to make the purchaser liable for tax.
ITAT Surat held that gift received from HUF cannot be added back to the total income of the assessee being Karta (Manager) of such HUF.
ITAT Delhi held that discounted cash flow method is the recognized method as per section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act read with rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
