Two Imp Verdicts On Taxability Of Development Agreements And TDS Obligation On Provisions

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.

C. S. Atwal vs. CIT (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

S. 2(47)(v)/(vi): Entire law on whether the entering into a joint development agreement with an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the developer results in a "transfer" for purposes of capital gains explained

The concept of possession to be defined is an enormous task to be precisely elaborated. "Possession" is a word of open texture. It is an abstract notion. It implies a right to enjoy which is attached to the right to property. It is not purely a legal concept but is a matter of fact. The issue of ownership depends on rule of law whereas possession is a question dependent upon fact without reference to law. To put it differently, ownership is strictly a legal concept and possession is both a legal and a non-legal or pre-legal concept. The test for determining whether any person is in possession of anything is to see whether it is under his general control. He should be actually holding, using and enjoying it, without interference on the part of others. It would have to be ascertained in each case independently whether a transferee has been delivered possession in furtherance of the contract in order to fall under Section 53A of the 1882 Act and thus amenable to tax by virtue of Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 45 of the Act

Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

S. 194C/ 194J: No obligation to deduct TDS at stage of making provision for expenditure if payee cannot be identified. No obligation to deduct TDS if services (roaming charges) are rendered without human intervention and are not "technical services"

The assessee has to issue Form 16A prescribed under Rule 31(1)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for the tax deducted at source. The assessee has to necessarily give the details of name and address of deductee, the PAN of deductee and amount or credited. In this case, the assessee could not identify the name and address of deductee and and his PAN. The assessee also may not be in a position to quantify the amount required for incurring the expenditure for dismantling and restoration of site to its original position. In those circumstances, the provision which requires deduction of tax at source fails. Hence, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-deduction of tax at source while making a provision

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

M/s. Majestic Exports vs. JCIT (ITAT Chennai)

Loss suffered on account of forex derivative contracts (Exotic Cross Currency Option Contracts) cannot be treated as speculative loss to the extent that the derivative transactions are not more than the total export turnover of the assessee. If the derivative transaction is in excess of export turnover, the loss in respect of that portion of excess transactions has to be considered as speculative loss because the excess derivative transaction has no proximity with export turnover

__._,_.___