Search Results For: 28


Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 13, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Law on tests to be applied to determine whether income from property is chargeable as “Income from house property” or as “Profits and gains of business” explained. The objects clause is not determinative. Income earned from a shopping center is required to be taxed under the head “Income from House Property” (Chennai Properties 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation distinguished)

Wherever there is an income from leasing out of premises and collecting rent, normally such an income is to be treated as income from house property, in case provisions of Section 22 of the Act are satisfied with primary ingredient that the assessee is the owner of the said building or lands appurtenant thereto. Section 22 of the Act makes ‘annual value’ of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How annual value is to be determined is provided in Section 23 of the Act. ‘Owner of the house property’ is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes certain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as deemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant is held to be “deemed owner” of the property in question by virtue of Section 27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

CIT vs. Green Infra Limited (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: January 16, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 6, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Even if the premium at which the shares are issued defies commercial prudence, the receipt cannot be assessed as "unexplained credit" if the identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the subscriber are not disputed. Interest earned on short-term fixed deposits is assessable as "profits and gains of business" and not as "income from other sources"

Mr.Chhotaray the learned counsel for the Revenue states that the impugned order itself holds that share premium of Rs.490/per share defies all commercial prudence. Therefore it has to be considered to be cash credit. We find that the Tribunal has examined the case of the Revenue on the parameters of Section 68 of the Act and found on facts that it is not so hit. Therefore, Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. The Revenue has not been able to show in any manner the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse in any manner

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Axis Pvt. Equity Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 3, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28/29: There is a distiction between "setting up of business" and "commencement of business". All expenditure after "setting up" is deductible business expenditure even if the business has not commenced. A business is "set up" when steps are taken to recruit employees and take premises etc

A similar issue viz. distinction between setting up of business and commencement of business had come up for consideration before this Court in Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1954 Vol. 26 ITR Page 151. This Court had held that business is said to have been set up when it is established and ready to be commence. However, there may be an interval between a business which is set up and a business which is commenced. However, all expenses incurred during the interregnum between setting up of business and commencement of business would be permissible deductions

Posted in All Judgements, High 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

ACIT vs. Sachin R. Tendulkar (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 25, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11, 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law explained on whether gains from sale of shares held in a Portfolio Management Scheme (PMS) should be assessed as "capital gains" or as "business profits" in the context of CBDT Circular No. 4/7 dated 15.06.2007 and Circular No. 6 of 2016 dated 29.02.2016

While drafting the provisions the legislature did not make any water tight rule for determination of nature of income arising from purchase and sale of shares to be assessed under the head of capital gains or business income. It has been left upon the wisdom of the assessee and facts and circumstances of the case. Under these circumstances, if assessee has chosen a particular course after deciding all the pros and cons of both the options available to it and if the choice has been exercised in a bonafide manner, the Board has advised as discussed above that the AO does not have liberty under the law to thrust his opinion upon the assessee, so long as the assessee follows his choice on consistent basis

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

G. S. Homes & Hotels P. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 21, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Refundable deposits received by a housing company for allotment of flats and future maintenance is business income. However, share capital received for allotment of flats is a capital receipt and not income. The principles of mutuality does not apply to such transactions

The Karnataka High Court held, following Shree Nirmal Commercial vs. CIT 193 ITR 694 (Bom) and 213 ITR 361 (FB), that share capital and refundable deposits received by a housing company from its shareholders in consideration of allotting area to them is assessable as business profits. It was also held that the principles of mutuality are not applicable. It was also held that deposits received from the shareholders for future maintenance is assessable as business income. On appeal to the Supreme Court HELD

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

Aerens Developers and Engineers Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 2, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Compensation for breach of promise to provide land to the assessee is not compensation for loss of profits but is for injury caused to the profit making apparatus. Such compensation is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax

The injury was caused to the profit making apparatus as the land which was profit making apparatus for the assessee was not supplied by JMA Buildcom (P) Ltd. as per the agreement entered into between the assessee and associates, and JMA Buildcom (P) Ltd. Appreciating the same, compensation was awarded in the arbitration proceedings initiated against JMA Buildcom.(P) Ltd. In other words, the basis of award remained the lost profit due to non-supply of the land i.e. profit making apparatus and not on loss of profit. We thus find that the only inference can be drawn is that the compensation received by way of reward due to non-supply of land by JMA Buildcom (P) Ltd. under the agreement was capital receipt

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28: Income from letting of property on rent by an assessee engaged in the business of letting is assessable as "business profits" u/s 28 and not as "Income from house property" u/s 22

The issue involved in these appeals is no more res integra as this Court has decided in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) that if an assessee is having his house property and by way of business he is giving the property on rent and if he is receiving rent from the said property as his business income, the said income, even if in the nature of rent, should be treated as “Business Income” because the assessee is having a business of renting his property and the rent which he receives is in the nature of his business income

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

ACIT vs. M/s Dattani Development (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 27, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: Land purchased by a builder with the knowledge that there are encumbrances on it and development is not feasible is a “capital asset” and not “stock-in-trade”. The gains on transfer of such land is assessable as capital gains and not as business profits. S. 50C applies to development agreements if the effect of the development agreement read with the conveyance deed is that the entire land with ownership rights are transferred

Section 50C of the Act is clearly applicable even to the sale of development rights in the land as was held in the decisions relied upon by the learned DR as detailed above , more-so we have already held that in-fact the assessee has not only sold development rights in the land but the assessee sold the entire land with ownership rights in the land if the development agreement are read in conjunction with deed of confirmation / conveyance executed by the assessee which are placed in paper book filed with the Tribunal. Thus, the land which was sold during the previous year by the assessee, thus keeping in view our above discussions in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, was a capital asset within the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Act and the valuation of the land as per stamp duty valuation authorities as per section 50C of the Act was rightly adopted by the AO as full value of consideration

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

CIT vs. CitiBank N.A. (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 12, 2008 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of purchase of securities. American Express vs. CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom) affirmed, Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC) distinguished

It was argued on behalf of the Revenue, that in view of the judgment in Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC), even if the securities were treated as part of the trading assets, the income therefrom had to be assessed under section 18 of the Act and not under section 28 of the Act as income from securities can only come within section 18 and not under section 28. We do not find any merit in this argument. Firstly, as stated above, Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) has no application to the facts of this case. Secondly, in the present case, the Tribunal has found that the securities were held as trading assets. Thirdly, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision reported in the case of CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306, that income from securities can also come under section 28 as income from business. This judgment is very important. It analyses the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd.’s case [1957] 32 ITR 688, which has been followed by the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541. It is true that once an income falls under section 18, it cannot come under section 28. However, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.’s case [1965] 57 ITR 306, income from securities treated as trading assets can come under section 28. In the present case, the Department has treated income from securities under section 28.

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court