Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
