Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

ITAT to consider sale of capital assets or sale of stock in trade in land transfer tax case: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the High Court and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in a case related to the transfer of development rights. The apex court remanded the matter back to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh in light of the observations made by the court and to take into account the relevant factors while considering the transaction as stock in trade or sale of capital assets or business transaction.

The bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna, observed that the ITAT has not considered the relevant aspects while considering the transaction in question as stock in trade and has not taken into account the relevant factors required to be considered by the ITAT. Therefore, the matter is required to be remanded to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh in light of the observations made by the court and to take into account the relevant factors while considering the transaction.

The case relates to the treatment of the transaction as capital assets by the assessing officer. However, the ITAT reversed the said findings and held that the transaction was stock in trade. The assessing officer had recorded the findings based on examining the balance sheets for AY 2006-07 to 2009-10 that there was not even a single sale during all these years and that the transaction in question was the only transaction, i.e., transfer of development rights in respect of land. Consequently, it was held that the transaction was one of transfer of capital assets and not one of transfer of stock in trade.

However, the ITAT, after examining the opening and closing balance for AY 1996-97 to 2007-08 observed that inventory was shown in the balance sheet in multiple years, without discussing the claim of the assessee and held that the transaction in question was the sale of stock in trade. The ITAT has not dealt with the findings given by the assessing officer nor verified/examined the total sales made by the assessee during the relevant time and during the previous years.

The bench observed that merely recording inventory in the books of accounts would not make the transaction stock in trade. As per the settled position of law, multiple factors like frequency of trade and volume of trade, nature of transaction over the years, etc., are required to be examined to determine whether a particular transaction is the sale of capital assets or business expense.

The bench further noted that even if the claim made by the assessee is accepted, including the assertion that Rs. 15,94,06,500/- was shown in the tax return in the earlier AY i.e., 2008-09, the differential amount of Rs. 10,69,79,146/- on account of reduction in sale consideration of development rights was to be assessed in the current year as either capital gain or business income.

Date of Decision: May 04, 2023

Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai vs Glowshine Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Latest Legal News