Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Surplus arising after termination of a development arrangement...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains computation
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Surplus arising after termination of a development arrangement and transfer of consolidated property rights is distinguished from compensation for destruction of a profit-making apparatus. Where contractual restraints prolonged the commercial sterilisation of rights, termination restored pre-existing rights and acquisition of reversionary rights completed a transferable bundle; on these facts, the surplus was treated as taxable capital gains rather than a non-taxable capital receipt or business income. A business-income disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was considered inapplicable to capital-gains computation. Expenditure or liability directly connected with removing encroachments and resolving boundary disputes may be allowable when genuinely incurred and sufficiently crystallised, subject to verification of documents, quantum, and nexus with the transfer.
Surplus arising after termination of a development arrangement and transfer of consolidated property rights is distinguished from compensation for destruction of a profit-making apparatus. Where contractual restraints prolonged the commercial sterilisation of rights, termination restored pre-existing rights and acquisition of reversionary rights completed a transferable bundle; on these facts, the surplus was treated as taxable capital gains rather than a non-taxable capital receipt or business income. A business-income disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was considered inapplicable to capital-gains computation. Expenditure or liability directly connected with removing encroachments and resolving boundary disputes may be allowable when genuinely incurred and sufficiently crystallised, subject to verification of documents, quantum, and nexus with the transfer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.