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 →

Commissioner of Income Tax 8, Mumbai Versus Glowshine Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

2017 (9) TMI 971 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Income from sale of land - business income or capital gain - nature of land - cost of the land determined proportionately - Held that:- We do not see how the Tribunal can be faulted. The Tribunal has recorded that the assessee was holding 50.16 acres of land, out of which 27.44 acres of land is the subject matter of the MOU dated 27the December, 2007. The remaining land aggregating to 22.72 acres has been converted by the assessee as capital asset, that is subsequent to the impugned transaction. .....

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 is to be assessed as such under the head “profit and gains of business and profession”. - The Tribunal being empowered by law to undertake that exercise, has performed it's duty. We do not see how in such background can the Tribunal's view be termed as perverse or it's order termed as vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record. No substantial questions of law. - Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1756 of 2014 - Dated:- 4-9-2017 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee is claiming to be engaged in the business of building, development and investments in real estate, then the Assessing Officer observed that the company had entered into an agreement with M/s. Kirit City Homes. It's development rights in a property at Vasai were sold for a total consideration of ₹ 15,94,06,500/. 4. The agreement in that regard dated 6th May, 2008 was duly registered with the SubRegistrar of Assurances, Vasai. However, a rectification deed was executed and regist .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al. He upheld the view of the Assessing Officer to treat the transaction as income for capital gains for the assessment year 2009-2010. 7. Being aggrieved, the Tribunal was approached by the assessee, but in the submission of Mr. Pinto, the Tribunal in the garb of considering the facts in totality, have completely misinterpreted the same. It has taken upon itself the task of re-appreciating and reappraisal of the factual findings though no perversity was established. Hence, the direction of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bunal carefully. 9. We have also perused Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That Section enacted special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. Subsection (1) of Section 50C in terms states that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (stamp valuation authority) for the purpos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

graphs 16 and 17 of the order of the Tribunal are that the assessee, for the year ending 31st March, 2006, disclosed the inventories at ₹ 8.66 crores. For the year ending 31st March, 2007 there was no change and the same figure was disclosed. For the year ending 31st March, 2008, the assessee showed sale of land development rights at ₹ 5,24,27,354/and the cost of land was shown at ₹ 5,21,37,454/. The reason for the sale consideration of ₹ 5.24 crores during the financial .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

esponding entries were made in the account of M/s. SICCL. Even the possession of the land was handed over on 2nd January, 2008. This falls within the financial year 2007-2008 relating to the assessment year 2008-2009. In that assessment year, the assessee offered this sum as income under the head business income . The development agreement dated 6th May, 2008 did not reflect the correct sale consideration and in the above sum. Instead, it mentioned an amount of ₹ 15,94,06,500/. On relying .....

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
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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