Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
The Vallabhnagar Co Operative Housing ... vs Assessee on 28 September, 2016 cites

G. Venkataswami Naidu And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 18 April, 1955

viii. The assessee further relying on the decision in the case of Venkatswami Naidu & Co, v. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC) contended that other things being neutral, ownership of land is prima facie presumed to be on capital account unless there are strong circumstances indicating to the contrary. Therefore the onus is on the revenue to establish that the profit earned in a transaction is within the taxing provisions.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 400 - Full Document

The Rama Co-Op L/C Society Ltd., Sonepat vs Assessee on 16 February, 2016

7.3.2 From the discussion of the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order on this issue (supra), it is not disputed that an amount of `5,79,725/- was received by the assessee society from the transaction of the structure on plot No. 26 by Prakash R. Tolat and Gautam R. Tolat to Mehta & Shah. This fact was not brought to the notice of the AO. On detection thereof, the AO brought the said transfer fee received by the assessee to tax in the assessee's hands. In respect of the assessee's claim that the said transfer fee received by it was not exigible to tax based on the concept of mutuality, we find that the learned CIT(A) on examination of the facts on the issue rightly concluded that the concept of mutuality did not operate in this transaction. Mehta & Shah who paid the said transfer fee were only nominal members of the assessee society and except for the structure purchased and occupied by them, had no voting rights or interest in the property of the society. Following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case Hatkesh Co-op Housing Society Ltd. (supra) wherein the Coordinate Bench in a detailed order, after considering judicial pronouncements relied on by the assessee, which were on similar facts as those of the case on hand, we also hold that the assessee does not represent mutual concerns and to such activities the concept of mutuality cannot be applied. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, we concur with the findings of the authorities below that the said 'transfer fee' received by the assessee was to be taxed in its hands. Consequently, the assessee's ground at S. No. 2 is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1