Search Results For: capital gains


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

Triune Projects Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(42C)/ 50B: The fact that certain assets of the "undertaking" are left out of the sale transaction because it would cause inconvenience for the purchaser does not mean that the transaction is not a "slump sale". To expect a purchaser to buy and pay value for defunct or superfluous assets flies in the face of commercial sense

The sale transaction was reported for a total consideration of Rs.45.83 crores. The sale was for a going concern, which included ongoing service contracts, employment contracts and other tangible assets, and intangible assets such as technical know-how etc. To expect a purchaser to buy and pay value for defunct or superfluous assets flies in the face of commercial sense. Unfortunately, the Revenue’s understanding is that in a going concern the buyer is bound to pay good money, transact and purchase bad and irrecoverable debts. Not only does it fly in the face of common and commercial understanding, but it is not even a pre-condition , as is evident from the definition of “undertaking”, cited in Explanation (1) to Section 2 (19) (A) of the Act

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S 50C does not apply to transfer of land and building, being leasehold property

The Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102 (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI vs. Satish P. Shah 249 ITR 221 (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal on an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subsequent decision following the earlier decision cannot be challenged

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1989-90
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 55(2): In determining the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1974 (or 01.04.1981), the value declared in the wealth-tax return as well as the comparable sales, even if later in point of time, have to be considered. The High Court should not interfere with findings of fact, unless palpably incorrect

A declaration in the return filed by the Assessee under the Wealth Tax Act would certainly be a relevant fact for determination of the cost of acquisition which under Section 55(2) of the Act to be determined by a determination of fair market value. Equally relevant for the purposes of aforesaid determination would be the comparable sales though slightly subsequent in point of time for which appropriate adjustments can be made as had been made by the learned Tribunal (from Rs.70/- per square yard to Rs.50/- per square yard). Comparable sales, if otherwise genuine and proved, cannot be shunted out from the process of consideration of relevant materials. The same had been taken into account by the learned Tribunal which is the last fact finding authority under the Act. Unless such cognizance was palpably incorrect and, therefore, perverse, the High Court should not have interfered with the order of the Tribunal. The order of the High Court overlooks the aforesaid severe limitation on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

Krishna Enterprises vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: If the difference between the sale consideration of the property shown by the assessee and the FMV determined by the DVO u/s 50C(2) is less than 10%, the AO is not justified in substituting the value determined by the DVO for the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee. Unregistered sale agreements prior to 01.10.2009 are not subject to s. 50C as per CBDT Circular No.5/10 dated 03.06.2010

We are also inclined to agree with learned AR Mr. Shashank Dandu that in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Rahul Constructions vs. DCIT (Pune) (Trib.) 38 DTR 19 (2010) ITA No.1543/Pn/2007 since the difference between the sale consideration of the property shown by the assessee and the FMV determined by the DVO under Section 50C(2) being less than 10 per cent, AO was not justified in substituting the value determined by the DVO for the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal