9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 339 - AT - Income TaxTaxability of amount received - year of assessmnt - Held that - No reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). There is no merit in Revenue s grounds as the said settlement was entered on 11-02-2008 which falls in AY. 2008-09 and not in 2009-10. Just because a survey was conducted and statement was recorded, the amount cannot be brought to tax in AY. 2009-10. In view of that, we find no merit in the Revenue s grounds on the issue. With reference to the valuation also, we are of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) has correctly directed the value to be adopted which itself becomes cost for the plots which were sold subsequently. Consequently, we affirm the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds.
Issues involved:
Taxability of amount and consideration to be adopted in Revenue's appeal against CIT(A) order dated 03-11-2014. Analysis: 1. Issue of Taxability of Amount: The appeal revolved around the taxability of an amount received by the assessee in consideration for surrendering interest in a company. The Revenue contended that the entire amount should be taxed, while the assessee argued against the full taxability of the amount. The AO had brought the entire amount of Rs. 2,25,53,054/- to tax based on his valuation of the consideration received. The assessee disputed this valuation and also contested the taxability of the amount in AY 2008-09. The assessee presented detailed submissions before the CIT(A), emphasizing that certain portions of the land allotted were not registered to the appellant and were subsequently sold by the company. The appellant also highlighted the challenges faced in the real estate market, leading to differences among partners and directors, ultimately resulting in a settlement involving cash and land. The CIT(A) carefully considered these submissions and decided the issue after analyzing the provisions related to transfer of shares and capital gains. 2. Transfer of Shares and Sale Consideration: The CIT(A) analyzed the provisions of section 2(47) defining 'transfer' concerning capital assets. The agreement dated 11-02-2008 indicated a settlement among directors involving cash and land for surrendering interest in the company, which triggered capital gains tax liability. The CIT(A) determined that the gain on transfer of shares should be taxed under the head of capital gains. The valuation of land for tax purposes was a critical aspect, with the CIT(A) concluding that the sub-registrar value as of 11-02-2008 should be considered as the sale consideration. The subsequent sale of plots and their income being offered under business income were also factored in, with the cost of the plots to be debited for computing capital gains in subsequent years. 3. Judgment and Dismissal of Revenue's Appeal: The ITAT Hyderabad, comprising SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, and SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, upheld the CIT(A) order. The ITAT found no merit in the Revenue's grounds, emphasizing that the settlement was entered in AY 2008-09, not 2009-10, and therefore, the amount could not be taxed in the latter year. The valuation directed by the CIT(A) was deemed appropriate, serving as the 'cost for the plots' subsequently sold. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A) orders. In conclusion, the judgment delved into the intricacies of taxability concerning the amount received by the assessee, the transfer of shares, and the valuation of land for tax purposes. The ITAT's decision to uphold the CIT(A) order showcases a thorough analysis of the legal provisions and factual circumstances, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
|
