Income Tax Appeal – Share Application Money Dispute | Abhisek Saraf’s Cash Contribution | ITAT Kolkata Decision | Penalty under s. 271D
The assessee, a tenant in a flat, sold tenancy rights for Rs. 30 lakhs and offered long-term capital gains on the basis that the said sum was the consideration. The AO took the view that as the market value adopted the Sub-Registrar was Rs. 33,11,200, the said market value had to be adopted as the consideration u/s 50C.
The assessee, a time-share company having resorts at tourist places granted membership for a period of 33/25 years on payment of certain amount. During the currency of the membership, the member had the right to holiday for one week in a year at the place of his choice from amongst the resorts of the assessee. The membership fee was received either in lump sum or in installments to the prospective member.
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Special Bench of the Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (SB) [ITA Nos. 2412 to 2416/Mds/2005] in the case of M/s Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (India) Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the issue of taxability, under the Income Tax Law (ITL), of timeshare membership fee received upfront by the Taxpayer in the initial year of enrolment of a member.
Only a trust which is for religious purpose is excluded and debarred from registration under section 12AA; a trust whose object is charitable as well as religious is not debarred from registration.
The assessee, a director and shareholder in a company engaged in share trading, returned income of Rs. 78,89,499 earned by her on transfer of shares as a “short-term capital gain”. The AO took the view that as there were voluminous transactions, the assessee was engaged in share trading and the income was assessable as “business income”. This was upheld by the CIT (A). On appeal, HELD dismissing the appeal:
The assessee, engaged in management consultancy, offered profits of Rs. 1.03 crores earned by it on sale of shares as long-term and short-term “capital gains” depending on the period of holding. The AO took the view that as the assessee was regularly dealing in shares throughout the year,
Manufacturing of a new product with a new technology at the same place after taking a fresh approval from SEZ authority does not amount to ‘splitting up or reconstruction’ of an existing business for the purpose of section 10A of the Act.
Under the Indian Tax Laws (ITL), a taxpayer carrying on the business of generation of electricity, which qualifies for income-linked deduction (eligible business), can opt to claim such deduction for a period of 10 assessment years (AYs) out of 15 years, beginning from the year in which the taxpayer commences generation of power.
In fact, the Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India [2009] 19 STT 408 (Bom.) has more than adequately dealt with the entire issue and inter alia concluded that it is only after enactment of section 66A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents; before enactment of section 66A, there was no such provision in the Act and therefore, the respondents had no authority to levy service tax on the members of the petitioners-association.
