Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
16.01.2015 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Friday, January 16, 2015

I. Headlines Today:    

  1. Inst. No. 1: Clarification Reg. Applicability of Sec.143(1D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961  (Click for detail)
  2. Trade Circular: Extension of Last Date for filing MVAT Audit Report in e-Form 704 to 30-01-2015  (Click for detail)
  3. Cir No. 2: Reg. Simplification of Customs procedures for shipping  (Click for detail)
  4. FinMin: RBI's move signals beginning of shift in monetary stance  (Click for detail)
  5. RBI's rate cut: More money may chase fixed income products now  (Click for detail)
  6. Rajan's rate-cut message to Modi: Now fix the budget  (Click for detail)
  7. Budget 2015: Finance Minister Arun Jaitley seeks public view  (Click for detail)
II.  Direct Tax Case Laws:

1.   Manpreet Singh Vs. ITO, I.T.A. No.: 3976/Del/13, Date of decision: 06.01.2015, ITAT - New Delhi  

Whether the rent received from the installation of mobile antennae which has been erected on the top at the building would be taxable under the head “other sources” or “house property”.  

In brief, the assessee received rent for installation of mobile antennas at the terrace and claimed a deduction @ 30% u/s 24(a). Whereas, the AO rejects the claim and treated the income as income from other sources. The CIT(A) has also taken the same view on the basis of decision pronounced by Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Mukherjee State Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 244 ITR 1 (Cal) where it was held that if the rent is only for fixing the hoarding, it cannot be treated as part of the building, nor could it be treated as land appurtenant thereto, therefore such income will have to be separately considered as income from other sources and held in the in the present case that as the rent was only for providing space for installation of the mobile antennae on the top of building, and such income is taxable under the head income from other sources.

The hon’ble ITAT held that once the fact is established that “rent was only for providing space for installation of mobile antenna”, then it is irrelevant to consider whether antenna will be a part of a building or land appurtenant thereto as the true test is whether such a space, as has been rented out, is part of the building or land appurtenant thereto. The rent is not for the antenna but for the space. The space which has been rented out and, therefore, as long as the space, which has been rented out, is part of the building, the rent is required to be treated as “income from house property”. 

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  ITO Vs. M/s. Modipon Ltd., I.T.A. No.: 2049/Del/2009, and M/s. Modipon Ltd. Vs. ITO, I.T.A. No. 2171/Del/2009, Date of Decision: 09.01.2015, ITAT - New Delhi

Whether the circle rate applicable on the date of transfer of a plot land, where such rate stood upwardly revised subsequent to the date the agreement to sell the plot of land in question had been entered into, was applicable for the purpose of capital gains ? Held, No.

In brief, the assessee had entered into an agreement to sell a plot of land for a consideration of Rs.2,62,08,000/-, when the circle rate was Rs.13,000/- per sq. meter.  However, the said rate stood revised to Rs.20,000/- per sq. meter as on the date of execution of sale deed.  The assessee computed the long term capital gains accruing to him on the basis of the consideration agreed to as on the date of the agreement. The Ld. AO computed the LTCG on the basis of value of land as per revised circle rate and brought the addition in income to tax. On appeal against the same, the Ld. CIT (A) held that the circle rate as on the date of transfer of property was to be adopted, and thus the position taken by the AO was upheld.

The Hon’ble ITAT held in favour of assessee noting, inter alia, that ‘it was not the case of the revenue that the buyer has given more than the consideration that has been accepted by the parties where they executive the agreement to sale’, and that by the executing the sale deed ‘the assessee has only completed the contractual obligation imposed upon it by virtue of the sale agreement’.
Case Referred: Sanjeev lal & Anr. Vs. CIT & Anr. (2014) 365 ITR 389(SC)

(Please click here for order)  

 Golden Rules:

  "Change is a Nature of life
but challenge is an aim of life.
So we have to challenge the changes
but not to change the challenges"


  Thanks & Regards

CA. Sanjay Agarwal

Member Central Council

 Founder - Voice of CA

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now