Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The case involves the interpretation of u/s 55(2)(b)(i) and u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) of the Income Tax Act regarding the cost of acquisition of bonus shares. The Tribunal held that the legislative intent of u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) is clear - capital gains on transfer of bonus shares should be computed with a cost of nil if conditions are met. The term "allotted" in sub-clause (iiia) refers to past allotment without specifying a date. The Tribunal rejected the argument that sub-clause (iiia) applies only to shares allotted post-1-4-1995. Referring to Dept. Circular No. 717, the Tribunal emphasized the simplicity of computation intended by the amendment. The Tribunal found that u/s 55(2)(b) applies to financial assets where a price is paid, not to bonus shares acquired without payment. Applying u/s 55(2)(b)(i) to bonus shares would render u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) redundant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the distinction between capital assets and bonus shares.
The case involves the interpretation of u/s 55(2)(b)(i) and u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) of the Income Tax Act regarding the cost of acquisition of bonus shares. The Tribunal held that the legislative intent of u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) is clear - capital gains on transfer of bonus shares should be computed with a cost of nil if conditions are met. The term "allotted" in sub-clause (iiia) refers to past allotment without specifying a date. The Tribunal rejected the argument that sub-clause (iiia) applies only to shares allotted post-1-4-1995. Referring to Dept. Circular No. 717, the Tribunal emphasized the simplicity of computation intended by the amendment. The Tribunal found that u/s 55(2)(b) applies to financial assets where a price is paid, not to bonus shares acquired without payment. Applying u/s 55(2)(b)(i) to bonus shares would render u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) redundant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the distinction between capital assets and bonus shares.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
