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 confirms STCG liability, remits section 50C issues for reassessment due to procedural fairness</h1> <h3>Shri V. Pushparaj, Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Bangalore.</h3> Shri V. Pushparaj, Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Bangalore. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Liability for Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) under section 45(1) of the Income Tax Act.2. Applicability of section 50C of the Income Tax Act for deemed consideration.3. Taxability of non-refundable deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs.4. Procedural fairness in the assessment process.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Liability for Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) under section 45(1) of the Income Tax Act:The core issue was whether the assessee was liable for STCG on the transfer of 55% of the undivided portion of land under the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 2.6.2006. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the transfer was a deemed transfer under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, and thus exigible to Capital Gains Tax in the year the JDA was entered into. The assessee argued that the JDA did not constitute a transfer as per section 45 of the Act and relied on the Bangalore Bench Tribunal decision in H.B. Jairaj Vs. DCIT. However, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, relying on the Bombay High Court's ruling in Chaturbhuj Dwarka Das Kapadia V. CIT. The Tribunal agreed with the AO's finding, supported by the decisions of the Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Dr. T.K. Dayalu, confirming the liability for STCG in the relevant period.2. Applicability of section 50C of the Income Tax Act for deemed consideration:The AO invoked section 50C to determine the deemed consideration for the transfer of 55% of the undivided land portion, using the guidance value of Rs. 400 per sq. ft. provided by the Sub-Registrar. The assessee contended that section 50C was not applicable as the Stamp Valuation Authorities had not adopted or assessed any value for the transfer. Additionally, the AO had not provided the assessee an opportunity to file objections under section 50C(2). The CIT(A) did not provide clear findings on the applicability of section 50C but confirmed the addition of Rs. 23,96,000 as the deemed consideration. The Tribunal noted that the AO had used information obtained under section 133(b) without confronting the assessee, which violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard.3. Taxability of non-refundable deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs:The AO included the non-refundable deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs as additional income, separate from the deemed consideration under section 50C. The assessee argued that this deposit was subsumed in the total deemed consideration and should not be taxed separately. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, suggesting that the deposit represented the cost of 4 flats with parking slots. The Tribunal, however, found that once the deemed consideration was quantified under section 50C, the non-refundable deposit was naturally subsumed therein and should not be separately taxed.4. Procedural fairness in the assessment process:The assessee contended that the AO did not follow the mandatory procedure under section 50C(2) by failing to provide an opportunity to file objections before determining the deemed consideration. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the AO's use of information obtained under section 133(b) without confronting the assessee violated natural justice principles. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to reassess the deemed consideration, ensuring procedural fairness and providing the assessee an opportunity to present objections.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming the liability for STCG but remitting the issue of deemed consideration and the taxability of the non-refundable deposit back to the AO for reassessment, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal provisions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found