High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H 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