80 IB allowable to entire project

Clause (d) inserted in section 801B[10) with effect from April 1, 2005, is prospective and not retrospective and hence could not be applied for the period prior to April 1, 2005. Since deduction under section 801B[1Oj were on the profits derived from the housing projects approved by the local authority

A recent landmark judgement by SC

By Adv. Vinod Sampat  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2544 OF 2010   Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. ..............    Appellant  Versus  Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. …...........     Respondent  WITH  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2545 OF 2010  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2546 OF 2010  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2547 OF 2010  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2548 OF 2010  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2449 OF 2010  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2456 OF

Demolition of Illegal Constructions

In a recent case of a writ petition filed against a case of flat owners of an illegally constructed building seeking respite from the BMC’s orders, the divison Bench of the Bombay HC held that in such matters it is necessary to take into account, not only the interest of

Transfer of leased premises sans business ends taxpayer’s right in capital asset

Recently, the Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of United Motors (I) Ltd. has held that income from transfer of a leased premises without transferring its own business amounts to extinguishment of the taxpayer’s right in the capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income-tax-tax Act, 1961 .
The Tribunal also observed that such transfer of leased premises without transferring the business cannot be considered as loss of source of income. Further, the source of income is always the business which is capable of producing some income and not the building from where the source of income is operated. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the building itself cannot be considered as source of income.

HC upholds 1980 land ceiling verdict

A five-judge bench of the Bombay High Court upheld a 1980 ruling by a three-judge bench on holding of land in Maharashtra under the Agriculture Land Ceiling Act. The ruling means that while deciding whether a person is holding land in excess of the ceiling set by the government, his

Top