Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
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 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
