Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
The ITAT Cochin dealt with a case involving Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) arising from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The tribunal held that the transfer of rights in 62% of the land in exchange for 38% of the developed area constituted a transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act. The delay in project completion did not alter the taxability of the transaction. The transaction with Plasma Developers Ltd. was deemed a transfer u/s 2(47)(vi), attracting capital gains tax for the current year. The capital gain was to be quantified based on the fair market value as of 01.04.2001, indexed under section 48. The sale consideration was to be compared with stamp value as of the transfer date, with the higher amount considered. The burden of proof lay with the assessee, and the AO was directed to decide the matter per a speaking order after allowing the assessee a fair opportunity to present their case.
The ITAT Cochin dealt with a case involving Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) arising from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The tribunal held that the transfer of rights in 62% of the land in exchange for 38% of the developed area constituted a transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act. The delay in project completion did not alter the taxability of the transaction. The transaction with Plasma Developers Ltd. was deemed a transfer u/s 2(47)(vi), attracting capital gains tax for the current year. The capital gain was to be quantified based on the fair market value as of 01.04.2001, indexed under section 48. The sale consideration was to be compared with stamp value as of the transfer date, with the higher amount considered. The burden of proof lay with the assessee, and the AO was directed to decide the matter per a speaking order after allowing the assessee a fair opportunity to present their case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
