Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara (Taxpayer) v ACIT. [2009-TIOL-789-ITAT-MUM] held that where a transfer of shares is made conditional upon fulfillment of certain covenants by the parties, the transfer can be regarded as complete only upon the fulfillment of such covenants.
In respect of the question concerning distance of the agricultural land from the municipal limits of city of Khanna the Tribunal has decided the issue holding that distance of 2 kms.from the municipal limits of city of Khanna has to be reckoned for the purposes of Section 2(14)(iii)of the Act by measuring the same as per the road distance and not as per straight line distance on a horizontal plane or as per crow’s flight
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In terms of provisions of section 47 (xiv) of the Act I any transfer of a capital asset will not be regarded as transfer liable to capital gains tax, if the conditions under Clauses (a),'(b) & (c) of the said Section are complied with. Sub-clause(a) specifies that all assets and liabilities have to be transferred by the sole proprietory concern to the company.
The carrying of a huge sum itself gives rise to a legitimate suspicion; the intelligence officers of revenue are, therefore, entitled to satisfy themselves, not only that the money is from a legitimate source, but also satisfy themselves that such a large amount is being carried for a legitimate purpose; therefore, even if the carrier is not guilty of any offence in carrying the money, the verification or seizure may be warranted to ensure that the money is not intended for commission of a crime or offence.
The income attributable to the operations of developing/producing breeder seeds or hybrid germplasm or parent hybrid seed containing desired traits cannot be treated as agricultural income and should be treated as business income.
It depends on the facts of each transactions, whether the letting out of the property is incidental and subservient dominant object of selling the property or not. If the property has merely been let out b> the assessee then the same cannot be held to be exploitation of the property for commercial purpose in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Shambhu Investment (supra). We. therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AC) for fresh consideration in the light of aforementioned observation.
Thus we find, if the functional test for a plant enunciated by Apex Court and jurisdictional court in their decisions referred to supra is applied to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in holding that roads, flyovers bridges etc., constructed and owned by the assessee and utilised in its business of
If we agree with this submission of the Id. A.R that as the ultimate tax liability of the assessee together with its AE does not vary even if the lower price is charged inter se, and hence the exercise done by the TPO be held as fruitless, then the provisions of section 92 to 92F would become redundant. Since the provisions require the determination of the ALP in an international transaction between the associated enterprises, it is imperative to undergo this exercise so as to prevent any loss to the coffers of India kitty. We therefore, reject this submission made on behalf of the assessee as devoid of any merit.
On careful consideration of relevant facts, I am of the view that important fact stated by the assessee in his reply to penalty notice has not been considered in accordance with law. The revenue authority and the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings proceeded mainly on a presumption that the payment was made through account payee cheque, decided the issue against the assessee and the expenditure claimed was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. In the penalty proceedings, which admittedly are different and separate from the assessment proceedings, the assessee was entitled to render fresh explanation and accordingly detailed reply dated 8-11-2004 was filed before the AO. In the said reply it was emphasized t
. In view of the above decision, the company whose principal business is that of granting of loans and advances, may earn a comparatively high income from some other activity in a particular year, merely because the income/loss from share trading in the year under consideration is higher than the interest income,
