Delhi ITAT rules that
amount received by the assessees (who have formed a consortium for the purpose
integrated township development) on account of transfer of development rights
in the underlying land during AY 2008-09, not chargeable to tax u/s. 2(47)(v),
being not accrued to assessees in subject AY; ITAT notes that assessees have
entered into agreement for the development of integrated township in February,
2007 with the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) which had also agreed
to provide assistance in acquisition of land other than the land owned by the
consortium parties so as to complete 72.9 acres; ITAT further notes that the
consortium parties entered into a shareholders’ agreement with a financial
partner on 18th May 2007to form SPV and under the shareholders agreement, the
assessees’ land and development rights together were valued at Rs. 103.45
crores, which were paid 60% in cash and 40% in terms of equity shares /
debentures and land was vested in SPV; Rejects Revenue’s stand that since the possession
of land was handed over by assessees to the SPV, it amounted to transfer in
terms of section 2(47)(v), observes that the shareholders agreement was
not registered which is the condition precedent to give effect to Sec. 53A of
the Transfer of Property Act, applies the ratio laid down by SC in case of
Balbir Singh Maini; Further notes that the consortium parties were under
obligation to provide the developed land along with necessary approvals and
permissions from the concerned competent authorities and in case they failed to
provide the agreed FSI, then the consortium parties would not be allowed to
withdraw their amounts fixed under the agreement, thus ITAT holds that “unless
and until the approvals and permissions are granted by GDA, it cannot be said
that any income accrued to the appellants.”: ITAT accepts assessees’ stand that
as and when the approvals would be granted in subsequent years, the
proportionate amount out of the advance so received under the shareholders
agreement shall be offered to tax:ITAT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kolkata ITAT holds Husband's HUF not falling in the definition of ‘Relative’ of a Wife for gift-tax purposes under Income-tax
Kolkata Tribunal has recently ruled that HUFs cannot be treated as “relatives” under the gift-tax provisions of the Income-tax Act, thereb...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Introduction: ADR’S, GDR’S: These are commonly known as Depository Receipts (‘DR’), a negotiable security issued outside India by a deposi...
-
In the case of "Maya Gopinathan vs Anoop SB 2024 INSC 334," the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided insightful guidance on the de...
-
Particulars in Part 1 and Part 2 of Step-2 of registration form are required to be exactly the same as reported in the TDS statement. Plea...
-
An eminent concern within the GST framework pertains to the entitlement of Input Tax Credit (ITC) concerning expenditures associated with In...
-
In Standard Castings Private Limited v. ITO , the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee’s appeal and set aside a demand that had continu...
-
The Approving Panel under General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), in a landmark direction, has characterized the demerger of Digital, Media a...
-
Section 68 -Cash credits Section 69 -Unexplained investments Section 69A - Unexplained money, etc Section 69B -Amount of investme...
-
Introduction Employee welfare is a cornerstone of corporate responsibility, and gratuity forms a critical part of the social security benefi...
-
Key Notes: Transfer pricing relates to the pricing of transactions (such as transfer of goods, services, intangibles and funds) that t...
No comments:
Post a Comment