Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that handing over possession of land to a developer for construction purposes under a development agreement, without actual transfer of ownership or payment of consideration, does not constitute a 'transfer' u/s 2(47) of the Income Tax Act to attract capital gains tax. The performance guarantee amount is refundable and not consideration. The HC distinguished the cases of Potla Nageswara Rao and Arvind S Phake, where transfer was complete with possession handover and consideration payment. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee handed over full possession for 60% constructed area and was liable for capital gains during the relevant year was held perverse.
The HC held that handing over possession of land to a developer for construction purposes under a development agreement, without actual transfer of ownership or payment of consideration, does not constitute a 'transfer' u/s 2(47) of the Income Tax Act to attract capital gains tax. The performance guarantee amount is refundable and not consideration. The HC distinguished the cases of Potla Nageswara Rao and Arvind S Phake, where transfer was complete with possession handover and consideration payment. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee handed over full possession for 60% constructed area and was liable for capital gains during the relevant year was held perverse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.