Skip to main content

Mere License to Enter into Property for Preparing Plan & to Carry on Necessary Formalities for Construction would not amount to Transfer of Possession

In ITO v. Raj Kaiwar, a division bench of the ITAT Chennai held that mere license to enter into the property for preparing plan & to carry on necessary formalities for construction cannot be treated as transfer of Possession for the purpose of determining capital gain under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 

 In the year 2010, assessee entered into a joint development agreement as per which, he handed over the possession of the property to the developer. As per this agreement, the assessee is entitled for 70% of the constructed area and remaining 30% will go to the share of the developer. If the assessee gets anything more than 70%, the assessee shall pay for the excess constructed area at the rate of `9500/- per sq.ft. The project was not completed within three years due to delay in getting approval from the coastal zone regulation authority, who granted the same to the developer only in 2012. 

 Assessee earned Rs. `8,46,12,019/- towards capital gain and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act for the entire amount. The bench noted the fact that the physical possession of the property was handed over to the assessee only after the developer obtained the permission from the authority. It was, therefor held that, a mere license to enter into the property for preparing plan and to carry on necessary formalities for the purpose of constructing the building cannot be construed as handing over of physical possession of the property.

 Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/mere-license-enter-property-preparing-plan-carry-necessary-formalities-construction-not-amount-transfer-possession-itat/9237/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

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