Skip to main content

Capital Gains Tax will not apply to a unregistered joint development agreement

In CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini, under an unregistered JDA between a co-operative housing society of which the Taxpayer was a member and developers, certain plot of lands were put up for development against consideration in money as also by way of allotment of flats, free of cost to members. After the payment of two instalments, developer defaulted in payment of the balance instalments, which resulted in the termination of JDA. The Tax Authority assessed the Taxpayer to capital gains tax in the year in which JDA was executed with reference to the entire amount, including the amount receivable by the member.

Under Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA) definition of “transfer” includes a  transaction that allows  the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘TOPA’).

SC noted that the provisions of TOPA will apply to a contract that is registered. An unregistered agreement has no legal effect and is not enforceable in law. Basis this, SC held that since JDA was not registered, the contract was not covered by provisions of TOPA and, consequently, there was no transfer for tax purposes within the extended definition of “transfer”.

Further, SC held that no capital gains was chargeable to tax also for the reason that no income accrued or arose to the Taxpayer as the  transaction of JDA did not materialize. SC also observed that mere presence of right to receive income unaccompanied by corresponding debt in favour of the Taxpayer results in hypothetical income and not real income.

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