C. Cases of transformation of land held by landowners as real estate in trade before entering the JDA: without being supported by the various positive/adverse judgments as above, the specific facts and circumstances of each case must be independently analyzed and sufficient caution should be exercised in the development agreement and overall case planning so that the evidence prevails without the courts being concerned about the substance of the parties. When the landowner transfers the land as a commercial portfolio under the JDA, instead of certain % of the built-up area (housing, stores, etc.) that must be purchased from the developer and are prepared to sell the same thing as a commercial stock in the future, the applicability of the relevant accounting standards/ICDS must be carefully considered, in addition to the guarantees described above. If, as part of a development agreement, the auditor authorizes the developer to enter the premises of his land in order to take all necessary measures to build housing, it could be said that the auditor handed over ownership of his land to the developer and therefore made a “transfer” in accordance with Section 2 (47) and was taxable as a capital gain in the year in which an agreement was reached. Since the contract is partially in accordance with the contract of nature covered by section 53 of the Property Transfer Act 1882, Section v of Section 2 (47) is clearly attracted. Justice-GAAR: otherwise, in the absence of a legal GAAR as above, the powers of the courts will continue to exist beyond certain provisions of the GAAR (Judicial SGAAR) and even if a particular case is not covered by the specific provisions of GAAR, (may be due to tax benefits below the threshold of case 3 cr. or other grounds) Courts may view the same as an abusive tax evasion agreement by exercising their inherent powers, as in the past Supreme Court decisions such as Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), Mcdowell – Co. vs.
CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), etc. on recent rulings by high courts such as CIT vs Carlton Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 399 ITR 611 (All). HC), CIT vs.M. P. Purushottam (2019) 105 CCH 106 (Madras), etc. This section introduces the concept of transferring the tax capacity of capital income to minimize the actual rigour that the owner of land or buildings must face when paying capital gains during the transfer year. A new section 194IC has been inserted, in which the withholding tax deduction (TDS) is applicable up to 10% at any amount, in return for the individual resident landowner/HUF, in accordance with the agreement covered in Section 45(5A). In addition, there is no threshold, i.e.
it applies independently of the payment. Under Section 45, paragraph 1, of the Income Tax Act 1961, all profits or profits derived from the transfer of assets acquired in the previous year, unless otherwise stated in sections 54, 54B, etc. relating to income tax, are considered “capital gains” and are considered to be the income of the previous year during which the transfer took place. Well, based on these facts, if the entry into DA/The surrender of property ownership under DA is the sale of shares in trading to make the expert liable for the return on capital tax under page 45 (2)? In The Blind Men and the Elephant by the American poet John Godfrey Saxony (1816-1887), six blind men meet an elephant for the first time and each human being touches a different part of the elephant and predicts what the elephant looks like. It is the same story of income tax on the Common Development Agreement.
2021年4月9日 3:17 AM 未分類