[Attachment(s) from Dipakkumar Shah cadjshah@yahoo.com [SolapurCAs] included below]
- See more at: Deeming fiction created by virtue of sec. 50C cannot be extended to sec. 11(1A)
PFA
Deeming fiction created by virtue of sec. 50C cannot be extended to sec. 11(1A)
Asstt. CIT Vs. M/s The Upper India Chamber of Commerce (ITAT Lucknow), ITA No. 601/LKW/2011, Assessment Year 2008-09, Date of Pronouncement: 05.11.2014
Deeming fiction created by virtue of section 50C of Income Tax Act,1961 in determining capital gain cannot be extended to section 11(1A).
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) on a solitary ground that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.43,78,588/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of capital gain arisen out of sale of property at Rs.1,22,58,888/- by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short 'the Act') without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings.
During the course of hearing of the appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the fact that the assessee is a society registered under section 12A of the Act. Therefore, provisions of section 50C of the Act cannot be invoked in the case of a society or a charitable trust, which is registered under section 12A of the Act. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shri. Dwarikadhish Temple Trust, Kanpur in I.T.A. No. 256 & 257/LKW/2011, in which the Tribunal has held that in case the income is to be computed as per sub-section (1A) of section 11 of the Act, if the net consideration for transfer of capital asset of a charitable trust is utilized for acquiring new capital asset, then the whole of the capital gain is exempt. It was further contended that the ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act and also various judicial pronouncements. Therefore, no interference is called for in the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We find that undisputedly the assessee is a charitable society and is registered under section 12A of the Act. The question of applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act on transfer of capital asset in the case of a charitable society was examined by the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shri. Dwarikadhish Temple Trust, Kanpur in I.T.A. No. 256 & 257/LKW/2011, in which the Tribunal has held that where the entire sale consideration was invested in other capital asset, provisions of section 50C of the Act should not be invoked.
PFA
ACIT vs. Shri. Dwarikadhish Temple Trust (ITAT Lucknow), ITA Nos.256 & 257/LKW/2011, Date of pronouncement -21/08/2014 Tribunal has held that in case the income is to be computed as per sub-section (1A) of section 11 of the Act, if the net consideration for transfer of capital asset of a charitable trust is utilized for acquiring […] |
!!!!!!??? To all.
Why was DLF allowed to jump the queue for early hearing, asks SC The court has directed the case to be transferred to the bottom of the regular list, till it receives the explanation about this aberration Apoorva 0 inShare 1 Comments Subscribe to: Daily Newsletter Breaking News Editor's picks Wave of cement M&As seen ahead Wipro CEO Kurien has no plans of stepping down immediately US Federal Reserve drops patient stance, opening door to June rate increase India's airwaves among the costliest in the world Is there an economic case for Gorkhaland? The apex court's registry is responsible for preparing the daily cause lists, which list all the cases that will be taken up by the different benches in a given day. Photo: Mint New Delhi: Real estate company DLF Ltd's wait for relief from the Supreme Court may get longer as the apex court on Tuesday said that it will not hear DLF's challenge to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) judgment upholding a Rs.630 crore penalty imposed on the company till it receives a report from the Supreme Court's registry about how DLF's case jumped the queue and got an early listing before the apex court. The court has directed the case to be transferred to the bottom of the regular list, till it receives the explanation about this aberration. The apex court's registry is responsible for preparing the daily cause lists, which list all the cases that will be taken up by the different benches in a given day. "When people are rotting in jail for years, you don't expect us to take up this 2014 matter," a furious justice Ranjan Gogoi said to DLF's lawyer C.A. Sundaram emphasizing that the bench needed to know how the registry was working. DLF is challenging the Compat's order which upheld the penalty imposed on it by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for allegedly abusing its dominant position by imposing "unfair and discriminatory" terms on its buyers through apartment buyers' agreements of three DLF developments in Gurgaon—DLF Park Place, Magnolias and the Belaire. DLF has challenged the jurisdiction of the CCI to entertain such a case in the first place claiming that this was a matter to be dealt by consumer fora. An email query sent to DLF remained unanswered. Madhurima Nandy in Bangalore contributed to this story
Read more at: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/1pAyKFULgQp83Abot4JN1H/Why-was-DLF-allowed-to-jump-the-queue-for-early-hearing-ask.html?utm_source=copy
Read more at: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/1pAyKFULgQp83Abot4JN1H/Why-was-DLF-allowed-to-jump-the-queue-for-early-hearing-ask.html?utm_source=copy
Reverses Tribunal's order, showcause notice pre-requisite for FERA violation action against Director |
HC sets aside Foreign Exchange Appellate Tribunal's ('AT') order that penalised former non-executive director ('Appellant') for company's defaults under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA') without serving Show Cause Notice('Notice); States that "AT failed to deal with the central point (non-receipt of Show Cause Notice) in the appeal filed by the appellant", thus unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice; Rejects Enforcement Directorate's ('ED') contention that appellant's Notice was served on company in which he was director, states that as per Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 appellant's Notice had to be served either at his place of residence/ last known place of his work and on date of issue of Notice due to his resignation from directorship, company's address was not appellant's address, thus concludes no Notice was actually served on appellant; Further states that "ED ought to have fairly stated before the AT that since no SCN had been served on the Appellant at his ordinary place of his residence, the Adjudication Order qua him should in fact be set aside and the ED should be permitted to serve a separate SCN on him"; Also rejects ED's contention, states that even without Notice and relying on documents being served on appellant, ED cannot contend that appellant should have claimed defences available under proviso to Section 68 (1) of FERA:Delhi HC |
The ruling was delivered by Justice S. Muralidhar. Senior Advocate Kailash Vasdev and Advocates Bindu Saxena, Aparajia Swarup and K.K. Patra argued on behalf of Appellant while respondent was represented by Advocates Rajdipa Behura and Monica Gupta. |
LSI Note:Rule 10(b) of Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 provides that service of notice has to be on either address of his place of residence/ his last known place of residence/ place where he carries on, or last carried on business/ personally works or last worked for gain. |
PFA
Projected terrace area i.e. open to sky is not to be included in calculation of 'built-up area' for Sec. 80IB(10)(c)by CA Sandeep Kanoi |
The first and foremost issue to be decided is as to whether the area of projected terrace (open to sky) is liable to be included within the meaning of expression built-up area contained in clause (c) of section 80IB(10) of the Act.
PFA
Five Things You Need to Know about Transfer Pricingby CA Sandeep Kanoi |
Governments worldwide are concerned that multinationals are shifting profits offshore through inappropriate transfer pricing. Prices charged for goods, services, royalties, and loans across borders drive how much income tax a multinational pays by country. 1. Companies that do not charge "arm's-length" prices are at risk of substantial additional income tax, interest, and nondeductible penalties.Transfer pricing […]
__._,_.___
Attachment(s) from Dipakkumar Shah cadjshah@yahoo.com [SolapurCAs] | View attachments on the web
5 of 5 File(s)
