| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
April 26, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Granting permission for development not “transfer” & consideration not assessable in society’s hands
The assessee, a co-operative housing society, was the owner of a plot of land on which a building was constructed. The assessee entered into a development agreement pursuant to which it gave the developer the right to demolish the structure and construct a new building. In consideration, the developer paid Rs. 2.51 Lakhs to the assessee and Rs. 3.02 crores to the individual members of the society. The AO held that as the assessee was the owner, it was entitled to the entire consideration of Rs. 3.02 crores (though paid to the members) and was assessable u/s 2(24). This was confirmed by the CIT(A) on the ground that the grant of development rights was a “transfer” and the consideration was assessable as “capital gains”. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:
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
Related Posts:
- DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
- Renu T Tharani vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee before us is closely involved with the transaction and it is inconceivable that the assessee will have no direct knowledge of the owners of the underlying company and settlors of the trust which has her, as she herself puts it, as beneficiary of such a huge amount. This…
- Carestream Health Inc vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The ld DR vehemently argued that the percentage of shareholding remains the same because reduction of shares had happened for all shareholders. We find that the ld DR relied on para 24 of the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in 133 ITD 1 supra to support his proposition.…
- Celltick Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Indian subsidiary of the assessee had for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y 2019-20 entered into an "APA‟ with the CBDT. As is discernible from the "APA‟, the functions of the subsidiary company inter alia included "marketing and sale of various software solutions" of the assessee company. As per the "APA‟…
- Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) As against the assessee's position, the primary material to make additions in the hands of assessee is the statement of Shri Vipul Bhat and the outcome of search proceedings on his associated entities including M/s SAL. However, there is nothing on record to establish vital link between the assessee group…
- Interactive Avenues Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Unless a claim for deduction in respect of payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited is made in the computation of business income, there cannot be any occasion for invoking section 40(a)(i) for its disallowance in computation of business income. As we have analyzed earlier also in this order, section 40(a)(i)…
Leave a Reply