Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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 upholds Assessing Officer's actions on capital gains tax liability for 1995-96.</h1> <h3>SMT PRAMEELA KRISHNA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER</h3> SMT PRAMEELA KRISHNA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER - TMI Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148.3. Determination of capital gains tax liability for the Assessment Year 1995-96.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The appeal was filed with an 8-day delay. The assessee provided an affidavit explaining the delay, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The delay was condoned in the interest of justice, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.2. Validity of the Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147 and the Issuance of Notice under Section 148:The assessee challenged the validity of the Assessing Officer's (AO) assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, the issuance of notice under Section 148, and the subsequent assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147.Arguments by the Assessee:- The essential ingredients for forming satisfaction before initiating proceedings under Section 147 were missing.- The initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was invalid, making the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order void ab initio.Arguments by the Department:- The AO had recorded reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment, based on material available on record.- The AO sought and obtained the sanction of the concerned Addl.CIT before issuing the notice under Section 148.- The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings after addressing all objections raised by the assessee.Tribunal's Findings:- The AO had material indicating that the assessee had not filed a return for AY 1995-96 and had entered into a development agreement, leading to the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.- The AO followed due procedure, including obtaining necessary sanctions and addressing the assessee's objections.- The Tribunal found the AO's initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148 valid.3. Determination of Capital Gains Tax Liability for the Assessment Year 1995-96:The assessee contended that there was no transfer of property during the accounting year ending 31.3.1995, and hence, no capital gains were liable for that period.Arguments by the Assessee:- The development agreement did not constitute a transfer of possession of the property.- Various approvals were required before possession could be handed over.- The capital gains should be taxed in AY 2003-04 when the project was completed by a different developer.Arguments by the Department:- The development agreement dated 30.6.1994 transferred rights and interests in the property to the developer.- The developer was given the right to enter the property, apply for permissions, and carry out construction activities.- The supplementary agreements and subsequent actions by the developer indicated that possession was handed over pursuant to the original agreement.Tribunal's Findings:- The agreement dated 30.6.1994 transferred control and interest in the property to the developer, constituting a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Act r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.- The developer's actions, including obtaining approvals, securing loans, and carrying out construction, evidenced that possession was transferred in the period relevant to AY 1995-96.- The Tribunal upheld the findings of the AO and CIT(A) that the capital gains were correctly brought to tax in AY 1995-96.Interest under Section 234B:The assessee challenged the charging of interest under Section 234B. The Tribunal held that the charging of interest is consequential and mandatory, directing the AO to recompute the interest while giving effect to its order.Conclusion:The appeal by the assessee was dismissed, upholding the validity of the AO's actions under Sections 147 and 148 and confirming the tax liability for capital gains in AY 1995-96.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found