Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rules deferred consideration not taxable as capital gains, emphasizes actual gains.</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8 (3) Mumbai Versus Mrs. Hemal Raju Shete</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' decision to delete the addition of long term capital gains based on deferred consideration. ... Addition on account of long term capital gains - Held that:- The perusal of the provisions of the agreement indicates that the amount of ₹ 20 crore is the maximum amount that could be received by the assessee’s group which comprises of initial consideration and the deferred consideration. It also indicates that there is no guarantee for the receipt of this maximum amount by the assessee’s group. In view of that matter, we find merit in the contention of the senior counsel for the assessee that what is to be taxed is the gain received or accrued and not the notional/ hypothetical income as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court). It is an established legal proposition that as per the provisions of capital gain, the amount can be brought to tax either on receipt basis or accrual basis. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. George Henderson & Co. Ltd and the decision of the ITAT in Mrs. Alpana Piramal case relied on by the Ld.DR, it is our considered view that these decisions have no application as the ratios in the said cases are applicable when the dispute relates to adopting the full value consideration vis-a-vis the sale value consideration which is not the case of the AO in this instant case as the maximum cap provided in the agreement cannot be equated neither with sale value consideration nor with the full value consideration since the said maximum cap is neither received nor accrued for the purposes of calculating the capital gains. In view of that matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Issues:Addition of long term capital gains based on deferred considerationAnalysis:The appeal pertains to the addition of a significant amount as long term capital gains by the Assessing Officer (AO), which was later deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The primary issue revolves around the treatment of deferred consideration in the calculation of capital gains. The assessee had declared a total income and shown long term capital gains on the sale of shares, claiming exemption under section 54EC by investing in specified bonds. The AO, upon reviewing the agreement related to the share transfer, clubbed the initial and deferred consideration to assess the capital gain. However, the CIT(A) overturned this decision, stating that the deferred gain, being notional, cannot be taxed as it was neither received nor accrued to the assessee.In the subsequent appeal, the Revenue argued that the entire amount of consideration, including deferred, should be subject to capital gains tax as the transfer was completed within the assessment period. The Revenue relied on legal precedents to support their stance, emphasizing the concept of 'full value consideration' for calculating capital gains. Conversely, the assessee's counsel contended that the agreement's terms capped the consideration at a certain amount, with no guarantee of receiving the deferred portion. They argued that taxing the maximum cap without certainty of receipt was not justified, citing the option to tax based on receipt or accrual basis in capital gains provisions.Upon thorough examination of the agreement's provisions, the Tribunal found that the maximum amount specified was not guaranteed to be received by the assessee's group, rendering it notional. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal affirmed that only gains received or accrued should be taxed, not hypothetical income. The Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's cited cases, clarifying that the maximum cap in the agreement did not equate to full value consideration and, thus, was not taxable. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of the long term capital gains.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the notional deferred consideration should not be subject to capital gains tax, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and established legal principles.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found