Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

CIT vs. Hemal Raju Shete (Bombay High Court)
April, 15th 2016

S. 45/ 48: Deferred consideration dependent on a contingency does not accrue unless the contingency has occurred and is not liable to capital gains tax in year of transfer

Assessing Officer on perusal of the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 was of the view that under the agreement, the assessee as well as other co-owners (Shete family) of M/s. Unisol were to receive in aggregate a sum of Rs.20 crores and proceeded to tax entire amount of Rs.20 crores in the subject assessment year in the hands of all co-owners. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) observed that the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 also provided for deferred consideration which was capped at Rs.20 crores, which had to be paid in terms of formula prescribed in the agreement dated 25th January, 2006. The working out of the formula could lead and in fact had led to a situation where no amount on account of deferred consideration for the sale of shares was receivable by the assessee in the immediate succeeding assessment year i.e. assessment year 2007-08. On the analysis of agreement, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) concluded that the amount of Rs.20 crores is the maximum amount that could be received by all co-owners under the agreement from M/s. RKHS. However, on working of the formula there was no guarantee that this amount or for that matter any amount would be received.

The Tribunal further held that what amount has to be brought to tax is the amount which has been received and/or accrued to the assessee and not any notional or hypothetical income as the revenue is seeking to tax the assessee in the subject assessment year 2006-07… learned counsel for the Revenue urged that in terms of section 45(1) of the Act that transfer of capital asset would attract the capital gains tax. It is further submitted that the amount to be taxed under section 45(1) is not dependent upon the receipt of the consideration. In support of the above he invites our attention to Section 45(1)(A) and section 45(5) of the Act which in contrast brings to tax capital gains on amount received… in the subject assessment year no right to claim any particular amount gets vested in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, entire amount of Rs.20 crores which is sought to be taxed by the Assessing Officer is not the amount which has accrued to the assessee. The test of accrual is whether there is a right to receive the amount though later and such right is legally enforceable… contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not be subjected to tax in the assessment year 2006-07 as the same has not accrued during the year.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Portfolio

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions