Skip to main content

Compulsory pre-emptive buying held illegal

In a collaboration agreement between the holder of land and the developer, there need not exist a sale of the property. The income tax authorities cannot assume there is a transfer and order compulsory pre-emptive purchase under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act. This provision intends to prevent tax evasion by undervaluation of property. In this judgment delivered by the Supreme Court last fortnight, Unitech Ltd vs Union of India, the building company had an agreement with Vidarbha Engineering Industries, lessee of land received from the Nagpur Improvement Trust, to raise a commercial complex. The builder will get 78 per cent of the developed area and the lessee will retain 22 per cent as consideration. The revenue authorities issued a show cause notice to Unitech accusing it of undervaluation of property. The Bombay High Court dismissed the challenge of Unitech, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court stated that the tax authority as well as the high court made decisions on wrong premises. The judgment asserted that "the transaction cannot be construed as a sale, lease or a licence." It underlined that there was no evidence to conclude that Vidarbha Engineering had "transferred" 78 per cent of the built-up area to Unitech and retained 22 per cent. Unitech received only the right to possess the land to construct the project. "The order of tax authority thus suffers from gross perversity," the Supreme Court remarked.

 Article referred:http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/compulsory-pre-emptive-buying-held-illegal-115111500777_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more