Skip to main content

Return from a Development Agreement in favour of land owner is capital gain

Cause Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata Iv, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Machino Techno Sales Ltd., ITA/160/2011, Calcutta High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 20/02/2023

Corum : The Hon’ble Justices T.s. Sivagnanam And Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

Citied: 

Background

Some lands were purchased by the assessee during 1985/1990 and the said land and factory shed was used by the assessee as its workshop and was shown as capital asset in its balance-sheet. The purchase prices were debited by the assessee under the head ‘land account’. On 13th November, 1994 the assessee entered into a development agreement with the developer under which the assessee in exchange of the land in question was entitled to get 45% of the constructed area and the remaining portion of the land and shed continued to be used by the assessee for its own workshop purchase. 

The Revenue Dept. treated income of the owner/assesee from the Development Agreement as of income from business which was rejected by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who treated the same as capital gain. Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The High Court observed that there is no evidence to show that the lands in question was intended for resale or was converted into stock-in-trade. On the other hand, the assessee used as capital asset for its business purposes and continued to show the land as capital asset even after 1994. Thus, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to enter into an adventure in the nature of trade to deal in the land as its business.

Under the circumstances, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

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