Search Results For: capital gains


CIT vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 21, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1991-92
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 50(2): If an undertaking is sold as a running business with all assets and liabilities for a slump price, no part of the consideration can be attributed to depreciable assets and assessed as a short-term capital gain u/s 50(2). If the undertaking is held for more than three years, it constitutes a "long-term capital asset" and the gains are assessable as a long-term capital gain

In our considered opinion, the case of the respondent (assessee) does not fall within the four corners of Section 50 (2) of the Act. Section 50 (2) applies to a case where any block of assets are transferred by the assessee but where the entire running business with assets and liabilities is sold by the assessee in one go, such sale, in our view, cannot be considered as “short-term capital assets”. In other words, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business. Such is not the case here because in this case, the assessee sold the entire business as a running concern

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

CIT vs. Annamalaiar Mills (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 8, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Capital gains: An amount received from a wholly-owned subsidiary in consideration of transfer of shares of the WOS to a group of shareholders is not taxable as capital gains. The Department cannot subject a transaction under the Gift-tax Act and also levy tax under the Income-tax Act.

It is not in dispute that M/s Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd. did not pay any amount to the shareholders who ultimately got the shares transferred in their names. The respondent was holding 100 per cent shares of M/s Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd., before it was transferred to Group B. No payment was made to the shareholders belonging to Group B and, therefore, the question of there being any capital gains at the hands of the respondent herein does not arise

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

Cairn UK Holdings Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 10, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(i): The capital gains arising on transfer by a foreign company of shares in another foreign company holding assets in India is liable to tax in India. The argument that the transfer is a mere re-organisation of assets within the group and that there is no “real income” is not acceptable. The argument that the India-UK DTAA should be given a “static” interpretation and that the retrospective amendment to s. 9 by the Finance Act 2012 should be ignored is also not acceptable. Where the DTAA provides that the income shall be chargeable to tax in accordance with the provision of the domestic law, the said domestic law has to be the amended law

Coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT Vs. New Skies Satellite BV wherein the Hon’ble High court has held that in relation to applicability of Article 3(2) of the relevant DTAAs, that it can apply only to terms not defined in the DTAA. Since the relevant DTAAs in the case before them defined ‘royalty’, Article 3(2) could not be applied. For terms which are defined under the DTAA, there is no need to refer to the laws in force in the Contracting States, especially to deduce the meaning of the definition under the DTAA. Further, the court has held that neither act of parliament supply or alter the boundaries of DTAA or supply redundancy to any part of its. Similarly, according to us, the provisions of DTAA where it simply provides that particular income would be chargeable to tax in accordance with the provisions of domestic laws, such article in DTAA also cannot the limit the boundaries of domestic tax laws. In view of this, we do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and dismiss ground No. 3.12 of the appeal

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Anita D Kanjani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 6, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Capital gains: While s. 2(42A) uses the term "held", the other provisions use the terms "acquired", "purchased" and "owner". Accordingly, for considering whether an asset is a "long-term capital asset", the period of holding must be computed on a de facto basis. The letter of allottment, even though not "ownership", must be taken as the date of holding the asset

Perusal of the definition of the term “short-term capital asset” in section 2(42A) shows that the legislature has used the expression ‘held’. It is further noted by us that in various other allied or similar sections, the legislature has preferred to use the expression ‘acquired’ or ‘purchased’ e.g. in section 54 / 54F. Thus, it shows that the legislature was conscious while making use of this expression. The expressions like ‘owned’ has not been used for the purpose of determining the nature of asset as short term capital asset or long term capital asset. Thus, the intention of the legislature is clear that for the purpose of determining the nature of capital gain, the legislature was concerned with the period during which the asset was held by the assessee for all practical purposes on de facto basis. The legislature was apparently not concerned with absolute legal ownership of the asset for determining the holding period. Thus, we have to ascertain the point of time from which it can be said that assessee started holding the asset on de facto basis

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Balakrishnan vs. UOI (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(37) Capital Gains: Meaning of "compulsory acquisition" under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 explained. The fact that the assessee entered into a settlement with the Collector regarding the compensation amount does not mean that the acquisition was not "compulsory" if the prescribed procedure was followed. Info Park Kerala vs. ACIT (2008) 4 KLT 782 overruled

It goes without saying that had steps not been taken by the Government under Sections 4 & 6 followed by award under Section 9 of the LA Act, the appellant would not have agreed to divest the land belonging to him to Techno Park. He was compelled to do so because of the compulsory acquisition and to avoid litigation entered into negotiations and settled the final compensation. Merely because the compensation amount is agreed upon would not change the character of acquisition from that of compulsory acquisition to the voluntary sale. It may be mentioned that this is now the procedure which is laid down even under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as per which the Collector can pass rehabilitation and resettlement award with the consent of the parties/land owners. Nonetheless, the character of acquisition remains compulsory

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

ITO vs. Dilip B. Desai HUF (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 27, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38): If the AO has accepted the claim for exemption for long-term capital gains and conceded that the assessee is an "investor", he cannot change his stand and treat the assessee as a "trader" in respect of the claim of short-term capital gains alone

The AO having accepted the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for long term capital gains of the assessee had conceded the claim of assessee to be an investor and the AO cannot take a different stand by treating the assessee as a trader in respect of short term capital gains alone

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Pr. CIT vs. Quark Media House India Pvt. Ltd (P&H High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 24, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 27, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/48: The AO is not bound to accept the consideration stated in the sale deed. In a case where property is sold between arm’s length parties at a gross undervaluation, the onus is on the assessee to explain and if there is no explanation, the AO is entitled to draw an inference. The presumption against the value being understated (not undervalued) is greater where parties are connected or related. However, if the AO does not allege that the assessee received more consideration than is stated in the sale deed, he cannot made an addition to the stated consideration (George Henderson 66 ITR 622 (SC) & Gillanders Arbuthnot 87 ITR 407 (SC) explained)

The judgments in CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (1967)66 ITR 622, Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407 undoubtedly hold that the expression “full value of the consideration” cannot be construed as the market value but as the price bargained for by the parties to the sale. It is necessary for the Assessing Officer to ascertain as to what was the price bargained for by the parties to the sale. The judgment, however, does not support the further submission of the assessee that the price stated in the sale-deed must irrespective of anything also be considered to be the sale price for the purpose of computing the capital gain. In our view this absolute proposition is not well founded. The Assessing Officer must determine whether the price stated in the agreement for sale is in fact the price bargained for by the parties thereto. In other words, the full value of the consideration is neither the market value nor necessarily the price stated in the document for sale but the price actually arrived at between the parties to the transaction. If therefore it is found that the price actually arrived upon between the parties is not the price reflected in the document, it is the price bargained for by the parties to sale that must be considered for determining the capital gain under section 48. The Supreme Court did not hold that inferences cannot be drawn by the Assessing Officer from the facts established. In fact in paragraph-5 the Supreme Court observed that there was no inferential finding that the shares were sold at the market price of ` 620/- per share. This read with the operative part of the order in paragraph-6 remanding the matter to record a finding as to the actual price received makes it clear that the finding can be based on inferences as well. In paragraph-6 the assessee is given an opportunity to explain the unusual nature of the transaction. It cannot be suggested that even if there was no explanation by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was bound not to draw an adverse inference

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 14, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 11, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54EC: Investment in specified bonds from the amounts received as an advance is eligible for s. 54EC deduction. The fact that the investment is made prior to the transfer of the asset is irrelevant

Thus, these amounts when received as advance under an Agreement to Sale of a capital asset are invested in specified bonds the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act is available. Moreover, on almost identical facts, this Court in Parveen P. Bharucha Vs. DCIT, 348 ITR 325, held that the earnest money received on sale of asset, when invested in specified bonds under Section 54EC of the Act, is entitled to the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act. This was in the context of reopening of an assessment and reliance was placed upon CBDT Circular No. 359 dated 10th May, 1983 in the context of Section 54E of the Act

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari vs. ITO (ITAT Vizag)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 5, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: The stamp duty value on the date of the agreement to sell has to be adopted and not the value on the date of the deed of sale. The proviso to s. 50C, though inserted by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, has to be given retrospective effect from 01.04.2003 as it is intended to remove an undue hardship and is curative in nature

The facts relating to the market value as on the date of agreement to sale and as on the date of sale deed is not disputed. The only dispute is whether the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement to sale or sale deed to be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The purpose of introducing section 50C of the Act was to counter suppression of sale consideration of sale of immovable properties. Before insertion of section 50C of the Act to the statute, there are lot of litigations as to consideration shown in document conveying title and payment of stamp duty. To overcome the litigations, the provision of section 50C of the Act has been inserted to the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2003 wherein it is made mandatory to adopt value u/s 50C of the Act for the purpose of determination of consideration. A proviso to section 50C of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 to resolve the genuine and intended hardship, in the case in which the date of agreement to sale is prior to the date of sale and market value of the property as on the date of agreement to sale and date of sale deed is different

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Y.V. Ramana vs. CIT (ITAT Vizag)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 23, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(47)/ 54EC/54F: U/s 108 of the Companies Act read with CBDT Circular No. 704 dated 28.04.1995, a mere agreement for transfer of shares does not cause effective transfer of shares unless it is accompanied with delivery of share certificate and duly signed and stamped share transfer form. An agreement to transfer share merely gives an enforceable right to the parties

The word transfer of shares is an act of the parties, i.e. transferor and transferee by which title to share is transferred from one person to another for a consideration or otherwise. Share transfer is governed by section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956. As per section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956 registration of transfer of shares is possible only if a proper transfer deed in form no. 7B duly stamped and signed by or on behalf of the transferor and by or on behalf of the transferee and specifying the name, address and occupation, if any of the transferee and has been delivered to the company along with share certificates and endorsed by the Company by changing such details in the share holder register maintained under the Companies Act. In the case of shares of listed companies, effective transfer would take place when title to share is transferred from one person to another through demat account in recognized stock exchange. In the case of shares of unlisted companies, transfer would take place, only when valid share transfer form in form no. 7B is delivered to the company and endorsed by the Company. Therefore, for effective transfer of shares a mere agreement for transfer of shares is not sufficient, unless it is physically transfer shares by delivery of share certificate along with duly signed and stamped share transfer form

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal