Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
ITAT held that the assessee's termination of development agreements did not constitute a "transfer" within the meaning of s.2(47)(v) of the Act, the agreements amounting only to a limited licence under s.52, Indian Easement Act, and not conveying title or possession; accordingly no capital gains or business income arose thereon. CIT(A) was upheld in reversing the AO's levy of capital gains for AY 2007-08, decision announced against Revenue. The Tribunal noted the subsequent statutory regime (s.45(5A)) addressing developer agreements but found it unnecessary for the facts. Direction given to restore interest under s.234C to the AO for fresh computation and factual verification having regard to the 17.12.2015 transfer date.
ITAT held that the assessee's termination of development agreements did not constitute a "transfer" within the meaning of s.2(47)(v) of the Act, the agreements amounting only to a limited licence under s.52, Indian Easement Act, and not conveying title or possession; accordingly no capital gains or business income arose thereon. CIT(A) was upheld in reversing the AO's levy of capital gains for AY 2007-08, decision announced against Revenue. The Tribunal noted the subsequent statutory regime (s.45(5A)) addressing developer agreements but found it unnecessary for the facts. Direction given to restore interest under s.234C to the AO for fresh computation and factual verification having regard to the 17.12.2015 transfer date.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
