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)
Delhi HC holds 10% pre-deposit requirement for penalty-only appeals inapplicable where SCN was issued before amendment
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi High Court (HC) [1] on whether the newly introduced pre-deposit requirement for fi...
-
ITC is blocked on motor vehicles having seating capacity ≤ 13 persons (including the driver) used for the transportation of persons. Furth...
-
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...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court (HC)on imposition of penalty on directors of a company under the Ce...
-
Recently, in a significant taxpayer-friendly ruling, the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT, in the case of Nikesh Bhagwandas Mehta vs. ITO , has clarifi...
-
Section 68 -Cash credits Section 69 -Unexplained investments Section 69A - Unexplained money, etc Section 69B -Amount of investme...
-
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when an expenditure is claimed to have been incurred by an assessee for promotion of his busine...
-
Income Tax Department had clarify that the renting of mobile tower would attract lower TDS Deductions u/s. 194-I and not u/s...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) clarifying the manner of gra...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Kerala High Court (HC) 1 upholding the validity of GST notifications 2 extending the t...
No comments:
Post a Comment