Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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