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)
India-Mauritius DTAA Protocol Notified: Key Tax Implications
The Government of India has notified the amendment to the Protocol of the India-Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) on 13 Oct...
-
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...
-
In a recent informal guidance letter, SEBI clarified whether a cousin of a Promoter Group member qualifies as a person ‘related to promote...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
Key features of File Validation Utility (FVU) version 3.3 FVU 3.3 will be applicable for quarterly TDS/ TCS statements pertaining to...
-
CIT vs. The Instalment Supply Ltd (Delhi High Court) The assessee bought 1614 items of computer systems for Rs.40 lacs from HCL Hewlett ...
-
Facts The applicant („A‟) is a closely held Public Limited company incorporated in India in the year 1953. A‟s shareholder included A (...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
Until now, 'Samaritans' is not how the Independent Directors are purported by Clause 49 in the Listing agreement. An Independ...
-
1. Concept of “limited liability partnership” LLP is an alternative corporate business form that gives the benefits of limited liability ...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
No comments:
Post a Comment