1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court Upholds Tax Provision Deeming Ownership for Cooperative Society Members</h1> The court declined to intervene in the assessment orders where petitioners were treated as owners of built-up space in a commercial building, as appeals ... Income From House Property Issues:1. Challenge to assessment orders and vires of section 27(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The petitioners challenged assessment orders where they were treated as owners of built-up space in a commercial building in Bombay under section 27(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They contended that they were licensees, not owners, as the property belonged to a separate entity. The court noted that the petitioners had already filed appeals against the assessment orders, so it declined to intervene under article 226 of the Constitution. However, the court decided to address the challenge to the vires of section 27(iii) in this petition, as it couldn't be raised before the appellate authorities.The court considered the petitioners' argument that shareholders of a company do not become owners of the company's property. The court analyzed the provisions of section 27(iii) before and after its amendment in 1987. The section deems a member of a cooperative society, company, or association of persons who is allotted a building to be the owner for tax purposes. The court clarified that this deeming provision does not transfer legal ownership but determines the tax treatment under sections 22 to 26 of the Act. The amendment aimed to provide tax benefits to members deriving rights from such entities. The court rejected the argument that section 27(iii) vests company property in shareholders, citing precedents and legislative competence.The court dismissed the contention that section 27(iii) was ultra vires, highlighting that the Income-tax Act includes various deeming provisions enacted by Parliament. The court found no legislative flaw in section 27(iii) and emphasized its assistance to cooperative society members and shareholders. The court also addressed the claim of double taxation, clarifying that section 27(iii) only determines the taxpayer under sections 22 to 26 of the Income-tax Act. Any disputes regarding the interpretation of section 27(iii) were directed to be raised before the appellate authorities, concluding the disposal of the petition and vacating interim orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
