S. 194C defines “work” to include “carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways” while s. 194-I defines “rent” to mean payment for use of “plant” (which is defined in s. 43 to include vehicles). As the cars were owned and maintained by the contractor and all expenditure was borne by the contractor, the contract was for “carriage of passengers” for which the assessee paid a fixed amount. Therefore, the payment of vehicle hire charges fell within the scope of s. 194C and was not “rent” for s. 194-I

Transferable Development Rights (TDR) granted by the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, qualifying for equivalent Floor Space Index (FSI) have no cost of acquisition and so sale thereof does not give rise to taxable capital gains (Jethalal D. Mehta vs. DCIT 2 SOT 422 (Mum) followed)

Though it is the case of the revenue that due to volume, magnitude, frequency, continuity, regularity, the ratio between purchase and sale clearly indicate that income on account of purchase and sale of shares should be treated as income from business and not as income from STCG, the AO has, from AY 2003-04 to 2008-09 (except for the impugned year 2006-07), consistently accepted the income as being STCG. In these circumstances, the Rule of consistency as propounded by the Bombay High Court in Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom) is squarely applicable and the income has to be treated as STCG.

There are two deeming fictions created in s. 50 and s. 50C for computing capital gains on building. While s. 50 modifies the “cost of acquisition” for purposes of s. 48, s. 50C modifies the term “full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the capital asset”. The two deeming fictions operate in different fields and there is no conflict between them. As s. 50C was inserted to prevent assessee’s indulging in under-valuation, there is no logic why it should not be applied to a depreciable building

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 (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

The AO’s argument that the assessee could have utilized its surplus funds for repaying the borrowings instead of investing in shares and by not doing so, there was diversion of borrowed funds towards investment in shares to earn dividend income is not acceptable in view of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd 323 ITR 518 (P&H) where Abhishek Industries was distinguished and it was held disallowance u/s 14A of interest on borrowed funds was not permissible if the investment in shares was made out of own funds

The AO had not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee but the addition was made purely on the basis of the deeming provisions of s. 50C. The AO had not doubted the agreement or given any finding that the actual sale consideration was more than the sale consideration stated in the sale agreement. The fact that the assessee agreed to the addition is not conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per agreement was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly, there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

The concealment of income had its repercussions only when the assessment was done under the normal procedure. If the assessment as per the normal procedure was not acted upon and it was the deemed income assessed u/s 115JB which became the basis of assessment, the concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. The concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all

The assessee-society had merely given permission to the developer to construct on the society’s land. No part of the land was ever transferred by the society. The Society continued to be the owner of the land and no change in ownership of land had taken place. Mere grant of consent will not amount to transfer of land/or any rights therein. The amount of Rs. 3.02 crores received by the members (on which some of them had paid tax) was not assessable in the assessee’s hands either u/s 2(24) or as capital gains