Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › ACIT vs. P. Venkateswara Rao (ITAT Hyderabad)

ACIT vs. P. Venkateswara Rao (ITAT Hyderabad)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 24, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
No transfer merely because development agreement is entered into

As can be seen from the observations made by CIT(A), he has given specific finding of fact that development agreement has not been acted upon by the developer till date. Therefore, he has concluded that as there is no willingness or part performance of contract by the developer, which has resulted in filing of civil suit seeking cancellation of the development agreement, it cannot be said that there is transfer of capital asset as envisaged u/s 2(47(v) read with section 53A of the Act. This finding of fact arrived at by CIT(A) has not been controverted by the department by bringing on record documentary evidence or through any other mode to prove that development activity under the development agreement has been started by developer. In the aforesaid factual position, since there is failure on the part of the developer to perform his part of the contract, it cannot be said that there is transfer of capital asset merely because assessee has entered into development agreement with the developer.

Related Posts:

  • R.A.K. Ceramics vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The powers conferred upon the CIT(A) under section 249(3), for condoning the delay in filing of appeal if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, are statutory power to alleviate genuine suffering of taxpayers, so far as their grievance redressal by…
  • Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The effect of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) thus was clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It was specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability in the treaty partner jurisdiction will not take it out of the ambit of taxable income of…
  • Kamal Galani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is the case of the Ld. AO that account with HSBC bank , Geneva is opened by resident Indian and black money earned by such resident Indian has been stashed abroad without paying taxes/disclosing income in India. But, fact remains that in the instant case, the account was opened…
  • Aamby Valley Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The question, therefore, before us is, Whether the provisions of section 47(vii) as amended by Finance Act 2012 is retrospective in nature ? It is a fact that existing provision of section 47(vii) was not possible to comply with when amalgamating company is the 100% subsidiary of the amalgamated company.…
  • Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The contention of the assessee that he has purchased the shares through banking channel and as such, when the purchase is genuine then sale cannot be questioned, is not tenable because the entire transaction of sale and purchase is to be seen in entirety in the light of the attending…
  • Hemant M Mehta HUF vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is clear from the above decisions that in case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition is required to be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases

Related Judgements

  1. Bharti Airtel Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    ITAT hauls up AO & DRP for “blatantly frivolous & unsustainable” additions. Suggests that accountability mechanism be set up to put a check on AO. Rationale for existence of ineffective DRP questioned

    if an action of the AO is so blatantly unreasonable that such seasoned senior officers well versed…
  2. ACIT vs. M. Baskaran (ITAT Chennai) 

    S. 14A/ Rule 8D: No disallowance can be made if there is no exempt income. Cheminvest (SB) & CBDT Circular are not good law

    No doubt in Cheminvest Ltd vs. ITO 121 ITD 318 (SB) the Special Bench of the Tribunal has held that disallowance u/s 14A can be…
  3. Mulla Associates vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The law, in our humble view, would hold even where the disallowance leading to the variation between the assessed and returned incomes is u/s. 40(a)(ia), being independent of the provision where -under the same (disallowance) is effected. That is, the … Mulla Associates vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read…
  4. DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Transfer Pricing: Low T/O companies are not comparable. Only operational profits to be considered for comparison The assessee, a courier company, made payments to its parent company towards net work fees, reimbursement of expenses, purchase of marketing material etc. In … DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT…
  5. KRA Holding & Trading Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 

    The PMS fee, on profit sharing basis, was for the twin purposes of acquisition and sale of the securities. The fact that bifurcation between the two is not possible is not relevant. The department’s argument that fee should be share-specific is absurd because fees for shares transactions is never…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*