Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

A. Rami Reddy Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hindupur

Apportionment of sale consideration among the owners on property jointly sold - Capital gain computation - Adoption of value of sale consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains in respect of property sold jointly - Held that:- There can be several reasons as to why some of the owners had agreed for the lesser amount of consideration depending upon location of physical shape of the land held by them or the proximity to the main road etc. But, in our considered opinion, this fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t more consideration that what was stated in deed was received, no higher consideration can be adopted for the purpose of capital gains. Further onus always lies on the Revenue to prove the existence of the material from which inference can be drawn that higher consideration was in fact received. In the present case, there was no material to draw interference that higher consideration was received than what was stated in the sale deed. It is not even the case of AO that the provisions of Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Kurnool, dated 30-01-2015 for the AY. 2006-07. The appellant raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The order of the CIT (A) dated 30-01-2015 is perverse, illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the subject. 2. There should be an explicit direction in the order u/s 263 to the ITO to make a fresh assessment. The important words in Section 263 are "Cancelli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

misconceived drawing inspiration from the words in the order u/s 263 "as to the taxability of the transactions" and equated them to a direction to the ITO to make a fresh assessment. 5. The capital gain arising from the transfer of capital asset is to be worked out in accordance with the provisions of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore for the purpose of computation of capital gains, the amount of ₹ 8,33,000/- only is to be adopted. 6. The CIT (A) has turned blind .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds taken by the CIT (A) from the order of the ITAT dated 23-05- 2014 and quoted in the page 6 of her order are not RatioDecidendi. They represent the loud thinking of the ITAT. They are only casual observations which are not binding on the Income Tax authorities. 8. ITAT has not given any order as to the quantum of consideration received by the assessee for computing the assessee's liability for the capital gains. The C1T(A) has not at all understood the order of the ITAT. 9. For these and o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

30/- and agricultural income at ₹ 42,500/-. Obviously, the return was filed beyond the prescribed time. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 142 of the Income Tax Act [Act] was issued. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 31-03-2009 accepting returned income of ₹ 2,10,330/- and agricultural income of ₹ 42,500/-. Subsequently, the CIT-Tirupati exercising the power of revision vested with him u/s. 263 of the Act had set aside the assessment vide order dt. 27-03-2012 on the g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

angalore. They have jointly sold this property for a total sale consideration of ₹ 1.50 crores vide Sale Deed No.6219/2008-2009 registered on 18.07.2005 at Bangalore. The sale proceeds are to be shared by the three owners of the land as per their share of the property in the ratio of 12/34 : 15/34 : 7/34 respectively. Thus as per this ratio the share of the assessee i.e. 12/34 out of ₹ 1.50 crores comes to ₹ 66,17,647/-. As against this, the assessee has offered a receipt of &# .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 8,33,000/-. The AO has failed to examine how this ₹ 44,61,117/cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee for assessee being owner of that portion of the land. (ii) On the reverse side of the Page '1' of the Sale Deed, it is noticed that the vendor has paid an amount of ₹ 13,56,000/- towards stamp duty and registration on a sale consideration of ₹ 1.50 crores. The SRO value of the sale property is not clearly seen from the Sale Deed to be examined u/s.50C of the Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

interest income from Canara Bank, the assessee has debited an amount of ₹ 16,500/- towards other expenses restricted to ₹ 15,192/- thereby and arrived at a taxable interest of Rs. Nil. It is not clear as to how ₹ 16,500/- expenditure is to be incurred for realizing this bank interest. This is clearly a lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer resulting an erroneous and prejudicial orders. 5. The assessee has purchased 10 Guntas of land at Kodigehalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and with drawal of ₹ 20 lakhs in favour of one Mr. Ashok were not verified . 4. The explanation offered by the assessee during the course of proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act was not accepted by the learned Commissioner and therefore, the assessment had been set aside with a direction to make enquiries as to the taxability of the above transaction. Pursuant to this order, AO passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 263 of the Act dt. 28-03-2013 at a total income of ₹ 22,80 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

land sold by them was 64 guntas. (A.Rami Reddy 12 guntas. Smt.G.Venkta Subbamma 45 guntas and I.Venu Gopal Reddy 7 guntas.) While computing the short term Capital gains the assessee stated that he received a sum of ₹ 8,33,000/- only towards his share of sale consideration. According to the sale document the assessee should have received a sum of ₹ 28,12,500/- towards his share. (1,50,00,000X12/64) When it is put to the assessee why he admitted lesser consideration, he stated that, ac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n guntas whereas the extent of land sold by Sri.A.Rami Reddy was 12 guntas and Smt.Venkata Subbamma was 45 guntas which is more than Sri.I.Venu Gopal Reddy. Therefore it cannot be believed that major amount was paid to Sri I.Venu Gopal Reddy. Hence proportionate sale consideration according to the share of Sri.A.Rami Reddy was taken as actual consideration received by A.Rami Reddy. The market value of the property sold by Sri.A.Rami Reddy according to Sub-Registrar's office records are ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s. Therefore 50% of the expenditure claimed is disallowed which works out to ₹ 54,475/- . 4.1. In short, AO adopted proportionate sale consideration of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- received on account of sale of property situated at Hebbal sold vide sale deed No. 6219/2008-2009 in the proportion of extent of land held and sold by him without accepting the contention of the appellant that pursuant to the old agreement between appellant and Smt. Ghattamaneni Venkata Subbamma and Shri I. Venu Gopal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessment had stated that there was oral agreement amongst all the three sellers to make payment of ₹ 1,33,34,000/- to Sri I.Venu Gopal Reddy seems to be illogical as there is no convincing explanation submitted by the appellant as to why such disproportionately high amount has to be paid to Sri I.Venu Gopal Reddy, especially when Sri I.Venu Gopal Reddy owns the least share of land of 7 guntas. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT while dealing with appeals against 263 order held as under: "T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of these three vendors. The value of consideration is attributable to each of the property is to be payable to the corresponding vendor. It is noted by the CIT that the basis of consideration of each property is not in accordance with the share of their property. Being so, there is error in offering capital gain by the assessee in respect of his share in the property. " Therefore, all the Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee on the issue of capital gain are dismissed as there is no meri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

easons for un-equal apportionment of the consideration received in respect of the property which is jointly sold. The fact that the MoU amongst the co-owners not produced had no relevance since the terms of MoU are already incorporated in the registered Sale Deed. He placed reliance on the decision of the CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd., [159 ITR 71] (SC) in support of the proposition that unless there is evidence that more than the consideration stated in the executed deed was received, no highe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons and perused the material on record. In the present case, the dispute is only with regard to adoption of value of sale consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains in respect of property sold jointly along with Smt. Ghattamaneni Venkata Subbamma and Shri I. Venu Gopal Reddy situated at Hebbal for a total consideration of ₹ 1,50,00,000/-. There is no dispute as regards the total consideration received. The dispute is only with regard to apportionment of the sale considera .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Forum: GST Invoice

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.

News: GST implementation smoother than expected: Jaitley

Forum: GST - TRAN1 - filed - Data uploaded with Remarks Processed with Error - Not coming in Electronic credit ledger - need suggession guidance

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

Highlight: Diversion of income at source - Joint venture agreement - 97% of the receipt transfer to M/s TRG Industries (P) Ltd. - scope of the agreement - it is diversion by overriding title - not taxable in the hands of assessee - HC

Highlight: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes u/s 35AC - After 01.04.2017 the legislature desired to withdraw such deduction. - The Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment - HC

Highlight: Transfer of trading assets at cost price, the profit component also stood transferred to the outgoing Directors, which otherwise belonged to the Company - the fact that AO has made the addition in the hands of the Directors would not make any difference - additions confirmed - HC

Highlight: The interest u/s 234B of the Act cannot go beyond the stage of S.245D(I) before the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Galvanized iron pipe is a different commercial commodity than a iron pipe, therefore the activity of galvanization in our considered opinion amounts to manufacture - Deduction u/s 80-IB allowed - HC

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns in terms of Section 194A - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC

Highlight: Disallowance of interest - reference to section 179 - The legislature has also recognised, that the doctrine of lifting of veil in the matter of tax dues is to be applied to prevent fraud etc. and not where the company has suffered despite its normal bona fide function. - HC

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Notification: Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 3118(E), dated the 3rd October, 2016

Highlight: Discount on ESOP to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), during the years of vesting on the basis of percentage of vesting during such period, subject to upward or downward adjustment at the time of exercise of option.

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force

Notification: Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income disclosure - surrender of income post survey u/s 133A - he disclosure made by the assessee is voluntary in nature, in the revised return - no penalty

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148 issued on the directions of JCIT / CIT - a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions u/s 147

Highlight: MAT - Adjustment to book profit - computation u/clause (f) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of I.T. Rules.

Highlight: Addition on account of alleged suppression of service value received - the addition made simply believing the Form 26AS will be an arbitrary exercise of power which cannot be sustained

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-UTT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017- UTT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Highlight: Liability to pay duty on import of software - Though no authorization was given by the appellant to DHL, it is an undisputed position that the software has, in fact, been ordered by the appellant and have been delivered to them by DHL - the appellant is to be considered as the importer



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version