Search Results For: 48


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 26, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law on whether consideration for alienation of rights under a "Call Option agreement" for shares is taxable as "capital gains" or as "income from other sources" in the context of the India-Singapore DTAA explained

In common parlance, a call option is reckoned as a contract in which the holder (buyer) has the right (but not an obligation) to buy a specified quantity of a security/shares at a specified price (strike price) within a fixed period of time. For the writer (seller) of a call option, it represents an obligation to sell the underlying security at the strike price if the option is exercised. The call option writer is paid a premium for taking on the risk associated with the obligation. Here in the present case, there is very peculiar agreement/ arrangement, where the strike price has been mentioned as US $ 1 and the fixed period of time for exercising the call option has been fixed for 150 years. This factum itself means that the call option in the shares have been given for perpetuity. Not only that, an irrevocable power of attorney has also been executed in favour of the ING Bank in respect of all the shares in PHIL confirming that, assessee will not at any time purport to revoke the same, which inter-alia shows that assessee has alienated a substantive and valuable rights as an owner of the shares in perpetuity, albeit without dejure alienating the shares itself

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Compensation received by flat owner from builder for hardship caused due to redevelopment of the building is a non-taxable receipt and has to be reduced from the cost of the flat. Amount received from builder to meet rental costs during the redevelopment is also not taxable as income

It is elementary that the connotation of income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes “any capital gains chargeable under section 45”, and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot be taken as income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmraje R. Kardambande vs CIT (195 ITR 877) has observed that “..,, we hold that the amounts received by the assessee during the financial years in question have to be regarded as capital receipts, and, therefore, (emphasis supplied by us), are not income within meaning of section 2(24) of the Income tax Act….” This clearly implies, as is the settled legal position in our understanding, that a capital receipt in principle is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and a receipt cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of revenue receipt or is brought within the ambit income by way of a specific provision in the Act

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 10, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Capital Gains: Mere fact that the assessee is shown as a co-owner of the property does not mean that the capital gains are partly assessable in her hands if the facts show that the other co-owner bought the property from his own funds and showed it as his sole property in the balance sheet

Revenue has also not been able to controvert the factual finding rendered by the learned CIT(A), after examining documents and copies of bank statements, etc. placed before him, that even though the assessee is shown as the co-owner of the said property, the source of funds for investment in purchase of the said property is by the assessee’s husband and that the property was reflected in his Balance Sheet from the period relevant to A.Y. 2005-06 (i.e. 31.03.2005) till its sale, after which the STCG arising thereon was admittedly disclosed by the assessee’s husband in his return of income

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

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1989-90
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(42A)/ 45: An agreement to purchase property merely creates a right to seek specific performance. The asset cannot be considered to be "held" from the date of the agreement so as to constitute long-term capital gains

Consequent to the vendor not honouring the agreement dated 18th May, 1980, all that the appellant had was a right to seek specific performance which he sought to enforce by filing the suit. The appellant did not have possession of the said land. It is only on the Consent Terms being filed in Court that the appellant got ownership and possession

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 27, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 16, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Long-term capital gains arising from transfer of penny stocks cannot be treated as bogus merely because SEBI has initiating an inquiry with regard to the Company & the broker if the shares are purchased from the exchange, payment is by cheque and delivery of shares is taken & given

Assessee has made investment in shares which was purchased on the floor of stock exchange and not from M/s Basant Periwal and Co. Against purchases payment has been made by account payee cheque, delivery of shares were taken, contract of sale was also complete as per the Contract Act, therefore, the assessee is not concerned with any way of the broker. Nowhere the AO has alleged that the transaction by the assessee with these particular broker or share was bogus, merely because the investigation was done by SEBI against broker or his activity, assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine transaction, insofar as assessee is not concerned with the activity of the broker and have no control over the same

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 18, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 18, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
In view of CBDT Circular No. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016, if assessee has consistently shown shares as an “investment” and offered gains as capital gains, AO is not entitle to urge that the same constitutes “stock-in-trade” and assess gains as business profits on grounds that there were substantial and frequent transactions and motive was to earn profit and holding period of such shares was very short

Before us the moot question which is required to be decided is whether the income earned by the assessee on account of share is required to be treated as business income or required to be treated as short term capital gain. After the matter was heard on 11.02.2016, the CBDT came out with the Circular No. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 in the following manner. In view of the circular, we have clearly noticed that the issue raised in this appeal stands fully covered by the Circular issued by the CBDT. Since the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade in all the years, therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular, the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year and claimed that the security is stock in trade and, therefore, the profit/gain caused to the assessee be treated as business income. In our view, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue and is deserves to be dismissed in view of the circular.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 48: Deferred consideration dependent on a contingency does not accrue unless the contingency has occurred and is not liable to capital gains tax in year of transfer

The contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not be subjected to tax in the assessment year 2006-07 as the same has not accrued during the year. As pointed out above, accrual would be a right to receive the amount and the assessee alongwith its co-owners have not under the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 obtained a right to receive Rs.20 crores or any specified part thereof in the subject assessment year. In the above view there could be no occasion to bring the maximum amount of Rs. 20 crores, which could be received as deferred consideration to tax in the subject assessment year as it had not accrued to the assessee.

COURT: ,
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 8, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 48: Interest on borrowed money utilized for acquiring shares can be capitalized as cost of acquisition

Interest payable on moneys borrowed for acquisition of shares should be added to the cost of acquisition of shares for the purpose of computing capital gains (Macintosh Finance Estates Ltd vs. ACIT (2007) 12 S0T 324 (Mum) (Trib) not followed, CIT vs. Trishul Investments Ltd (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad) (HC) followed)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: The stamp duty value on the date of agreement & not date of sale deed has to be taken. The nature of the property on the date of agreement has to be considered. Q whether proviso to s. 56(2)(vii)(b) is curative and retrospective left open

The issue is as to whether the date of agreement or the date of execution of sale deed has to be considered for the purpose of adopting the SRO value under S.50C of the Act. We find that this issue is now settled in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal and Smt. Shantilal Motilal V/s. CIT(365 ITR 389) as well as decisions of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Visakhapatnam in the cases of M/s. Lahiri Promoters Visakhapatnam V/s. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Visakhapatnam (ITA No.12/Vizag/2009 dated 22.6.2010) and Moole Rami Reddy V/s. ITO (ITA No.311/Vizag/2010 dated 10.12.2010). It is therefore, now settled that the SRO value as on the date of agreement of sale has to be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gains