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:

  • Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We also cannot presume or apply test of human probabilities, we are dealing with the business transaction, it has to be based on cogent material. Considering the whole situation, in our considered view, the AO/CIT(A) have restricted themselves by stopping the investigation based on circumstantial evidence and applying test of…
  • ITO vs. K. Ramakrishna Reddy (ITAT Hyderabad) A.O. was of the opinion that capital gains declared by the assessee was bogus. In this regard, A.O. also observed that he received information from the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai that M/s. Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt Ltd., one of the group companies of Mr. Mukesh…
  • 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…
  • DCIT vs. Inventaa Industries Private Limited (ITAT Hyderabad Special Bench) It is clear that we cannot restrict the word “product” to ‘plants’, ‘fruits’, ‘vegetables’ or such botanical life only. The only condition is that the “product” in question should be raised on the land by performing some basic operations. Mushroom produced by the assessee is a product. This product is…
  • Godaddy.com LLC vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is now settled law that with the advent of modern technology particularly that relating to cyberspace, domain names or Internet sites are entitled to protection as a trade mark because they are more than a mere address. The rendering of Internet services is also entitled to protection in the…
  • N. R. Ravikrishnan vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) It is not in dispute that ESOP options provided valuable right to the assessee to exercise and have allotment of shares. They were thus ‘capital asset’ held by the assessee from the date of grant i.e., 28.02.2003 and 02.02.2004 for which a consideration was paid to the assessee under the…

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 *

*