Judgments Overruled by Finance Bill 2013

> As said by the Finance Minister that, Amendment as a
> consequence to certain Courts decisions are incorporated in direct tax
> proposals â€" Budget 2013
>
> Â
>
> Finance Bill 2013 may
> overrule Following Court decision.
>
> Â
>
> 1. Proposed Amendment  in "Application of seized assets under section 132B"

>
>
>
> Â
>
> The
> existing provisions contained in section 132B of the Income-tax Act, inter
> alia, provide that seized assets may be adjusted against any existing
> liability under the Income-tax Act, Wealth-tax Act, the Expenditure-tax Act,
> the Gift-tax Act and the Interest-tax Act and the amount of liability determined on completion
> of assessments pursuant to search, including penalty levied or interest payable and in respect of which
> such person is in default or deemed to be in default.
>
> Â
>
> Various
> courts have taken a view that the term “existing
> liability� includes advance tax
> liability of the assessee, which is not in consonance with the
> intention of the legislature. The legislative intent behind this provision is
> to ensure the recovery of outstanding tax/interest/penalty and also to provide
> for recovery of taxes/interest/penalty, which may arise subsequent to the
> assessment pursuant to search.
>
> Â
>
> Accordingly,
> it is proposed to amend the aforesaid section so as to clarify that the
> existing liability does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of
> Chapter XVII of the Act.
>
> Â
>
> This
> amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2013.
>
> Â
>
> May Overrule an Bombay High court ruling in
> the case of Shri Jyotindra B. Mody, Whether the ITAT was justified in holding
> that the seized cash amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/and the amount of Rs.1.98
> Crores deposited by the Assessee on 31st January, 2007 could be adjusted
> against the Advance Tax liability while computing the interest under sections
> 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Held,
> yes
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. Proposed
> Amendment in Clarification of the phrase “tax due� for the purposes of recovery in certain
> cases
>
> Â
>
> Section
> 179 of the Income-tax Act provides that where the tax due from a private
> company cannot be recovered from such company, then the director (who was the director of such
> company during the previous year to which non-recovery relates) shall be
> jointly and severally liable for payment of such tax unless he proves that the
> non-recovery of tax cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part. This
> provision is intended to recover outstanding demand under the Act of a private company from the directors of
> such company in certain cases. However, some courts have interpreted the phrase
> ‘tax due’ used in section 179 to hold that it does not
> include penalty, interest and other sum payable under the Act.
>
> Â
>
> In view
> of the above, it is proposed to clarify that for the purposes of this section,
> the expression “tax due� includes penalty, interest or any other sum payable under
> the Act. Amendments on the similar lines for clarifying the expression ‘tax due’ is
> proposed to be made to the provisions of section 167C.
>
> Â
>
> These
> amendments will take effect from 1st June, 2013.
>
>
>
>
>
> May Overrule the case reported in (2012) 6
> TaxCorp (DT) 53191 (DELHI) the
> Court is of the opinion that the structure and construct of the Act has
> consciously used different words to create constructive liability on third
> parties, in the case of default in payment of taxes by an assessee. The
> treatment of the same subject matter by using different terms - in some
> instances expansive and in others, restrictive, mean that the Court has to
> adopt a circumspect approach and limit itself to the words used in the given
> case (in the present case, "tax due" under Section 179) and not
> "travel outside them on a voyage of discovery" (Magor & St.
> Mellons RDC v. Newport Corporation 1951 (2) All ER 839). Therefore, the
> petitioner cannot be made liable for anything more than the tax (defined under
> Section 2 (43)). The respondent is consequently directed to determine the
> liability of the Petitioner, in the light of the finding.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. Proposed Amendment
> in Tax Residency Certificate - Section
> 90 of the Income Tax Act empowers the Central Government to enter into an
> agreement with the Government of any foreign country or specified territory
> outside India for the purpose of â€"
>
> Â
>
> (i) granting relief in respect of avoidance of double
> taxation,
>
> (ii) exchange of information and
>
>
> (iii) recovery of taxes.
>
>
> Â
>
> Further section 90A of the Income-tax Act empowers the Central
> Government to adopt any agreement between specified associations for above
> mentioned purposes.
>
> Â
>
> In exercise of this power, the Central Government has entered
> into various Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) with different
> countries and has adopted agreements between specified associations for relief
> of double taxation. The scheme of interplay between DTAA and domestic
> legislation ensures that a taxpayer, who is resident of one of the contracting
> country to the DTAA, is entitled to claim applicability of beneficial
> provisions either of DTAA or of the domestic law. Sub-section (4) of sections
> 90 and 90A of the Income-tax Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 makes submission
> of Tax Residency Certificate containing prescribed particulars, as a condition
> for availing benefits of the agreements referred to in these sections.
>
> Â
>
> It is proposed to amend sections 90 and 90A in order to provide
> that submission of a tax residency certificate is a necessary but not a
> sufficient condition for claiming benefits under the agreements referred to in
> sections 90 and 90A. This position was earlier mentioned in the memorandum
> explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2012, in the context of insertion of
> sub-section (4) in sections 90 & 90A.
>
> Â
>
> These
> amendments will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2013 and will,
> accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2013-14 and subsequent
> assessment years.
>
> Â
>
> May Overrule
> the case reported in (2003) TaxCorp (INTL) 1732 (SC) held that FIIs
> based in Mauritius are entitled to exemption from capital gains tax; CBDT
> Circular dated April 13, 2000 upheld legal and valid
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. Proposed Amendment
> in Additional Income-tax on distributed income by company for
> buy-back of unlisted shares
>
> Â
>
> Existing provisions of Section 2(22)(e) provide the definition
> of dividends for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. Section 115-O provides for
> levy of Dividend Distribution Tax(DDT) on the company at the time when company
> distributes , declares or pays any dividend to its shareholders. Consequent to
> the levy of DDT the amount of dividend received by the shareholders is not included
> in the total income of the shareholder.
>
> Â
>
> The consideration received by a shareholder on buy-back of
> shares by the company is not treated as dividend but is taxable as capital
> gains under section 46A of the Act.
>
> Â
>
> A company, having distributable reserves, has two options to
> distribute the same to its shareholders either by declaration and payment of
> dividends to the shareholders, or by way of purchase of its own shares (i.e.
> buy back of shares) at a consideration fixed by it. In the first case, the
> payment by company is subject to DDT and income in the hands of shareholders is
> exempt. In the second case the income is taxed in the hands of shareholder as
> capital gains.
>
> Â
>
> Unlisted Companies, as part of tax avoidance scheme, are
> resorting to buy back of shares instead of payment of dividends in order to
> avoid payment of tax by way of DDT particularly where the capital gains arising
> to the shareholders are either not chargeable to tax or are taxable at a lower
> rate.
>
> Â
>
> In order to curb such practice it is proposed to amend the Act,
> by insertion of new Chapter XII-DA, to provide that the consideration paid by
> the company for purchase of its own unlisted shares which is in excess of the
> sum received by the company at the time of issue of such shares (distributed
> income) will be charged to tax and the company would be liable to pay
> additional income-tax @ 20% of the distributed income paid to the shareholder.
> The additional income-tax payable by the company shall be the final tax on
> similar lines as dividend distribution tax. The income arising to the
> shareholders in respect of such buy back by the company would be exempt where
> the company is liable to pay the additional income-tax on the buy-back of
> shares.
>
> Â
>
> These
> amendments will take effect from 1stJune, 2013.
>
> Â
>
> May Overrule
> the case reported in (2012) TaxCorp
> (INTL) 4300 (AAR) Held that the capital gains arising out of the proposed
> buyback of shares is not taxable in India in view of paragraph 4 of Article 13
> of the DTAC between India and Mauritius.
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> 5. Proposed Amendment in Direction for special audit under
> sub-section (2A) of section 142
>
>
>
>
> The existing provisions
> contained in sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Income-tax Act, inter alia,
> provide that if at any stage of the
> proceeding, the Assessing Officer having regard to the nature and complexity of
> the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the revenue, is of the
> opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the approval of the Chief
> Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get his accounts
> audited by an accountant and to furnish a report of such audit.
>
> Â
>
> The
> expression “nature and complexity of the
> accounts� has been interpreted in a
> very restrictive manner by various courts.
>
> Â
>
> It is,
> therefore, proposed to amend the aforesaid sub-section so as to provide that if
> at any stage of the proceedings before him,
> the Assessing Officer, having regard to the nature and complexity of the
> accounts, volume of the accounts, doubts about the correctness of the accounts,
> multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialized nature of business
> activity of the assessee,
> and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to
> do, he may, with the previous approval of
> the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, direct the assessee to get his
> accounts audited by an accountant and to furnish a report of such audit.
>
> Â
>
> This
> amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2013.
>
> Â
>
> May Overrule
> the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp
> (DT) 52339 (DELHI) held, Irregularities can be examined and verified
> by the Assessing Officer and for this purpose, special audit is not required.
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> 6. Proposed Amendment in “Keyman insurance policy�
>
>
>
> Â
>
> The
> existing provisions of clause (10D) of section 10, inter alia, exempt any sum
> received under a life insurance policy other than a keyman insurance policy. Explanation 1 to the said clause
> (10D) defines a keyman insurance policy to mean a life insurance policy taken
> by a person on the life of another person who is or was the employee of the first-mentioned
> person or is or was connected in any manner whatsoever with the business of the
> first-mentioned person.
>
> Â
>
> It has
> been noticed that the policies taken as keyman insurance policy are being
> assigned to the keyman before its maturity. The keyman pays the remaining premium on
> the policy and claims the sum received under the policy as exempt on the ground
> that the policy is no longer a keyman insurance policy. Thus, the exemption
> under section 10(10D) is being claimed for policies which were originally keyman
> insurance policies but during the term these were assigned to some other
> person. The Courts have also noticed this loophole in law.
>
> Â
>
> With a
> view to plug the loophole and check such practices to avoid payment of taxes,
> it is proposed to amend the provisions of clause (10D) of section 10 to provide that a keyman
> insurance policy which has been assigned to any person during its term, with or without consideration,
> shall continue to be treated as a keyman insurance policy.
>
> Â
>
> The
> above amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will,
> accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent
> assessments years.
>
> Â
>
> May Overrule
> the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 51593 (DELHI) Held that, The
> insurance company has itself clarified that on assignment, it does not remain a
> keyman policy and gets converted into an ordinary policy. It is not open to the
> Revenue to still allege that the policy in question is  keyman  policy and when it matures, the advantage
> drawn there from is taxable; no doubt, the parties here, viz., the company as
> well as the individual taken huge benefit of these provisions, but it cannot be
> treated as the case of tax evasion. It is a case of arranging the affairs in
> such a manner as to avail the state exemption as provided in Section 10(10D);
> law is clear. Every assessee has right to plan its affairs in such a manner
> which may result in payment of least tax possible, albeit, in conformity with
> the provisions of Act. It is also permissible to the assessee to take advantage
> of the gaping holes in the provisions of the Act. The job of the Court is to
> simply look at the provisions of the Act and t see whether these provisions
> allow the assessee to arrange their affairs to ensure lesser payment of tax. If
> that is permissible, no further scrutiny is required and this would not amount
> to tax evasion.
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> 7. Proposed Amendment in “Taxability of immovable property
> received for inadequate consideration�
>
>
>
>
> The
> existing provisions of sub clause (b) of clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of
> section 56 of the Income-tax Act, inter alia, provide that where any immovable
> property is received by an individual or HUF without consideration, the stamp
> duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such
> property would be charged to tax in the hands of the individual or HUF as
> income from other sources.
>
> Â
>
> The
> existing provision does not cover a situation where the immovable property has
> been received by an individual or HUF for inadequate consideration. It is proposed to amend
> the provisions of clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 56 so as to
> provide that
> where any immovable property is received for a consideration which is less than
> the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of
> such property as exceeds such consideration, shall be chargeable to tax in the
> hands of the individual or HUF as income from other sources.
>
> Â
>
> Considering
> the fact that there may be a time gap between the date of agreement and the
> date of registration, it is proposed to provide that where the date of the
> agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of the immovable
> property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value
> may be taken as on the date of the agreement, instead of that on the date of
> registration. This exception shall, however, apply only in a case where the
> amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date
> of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of such
> immovable property.
>
> Â
>
> This
> amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will,
> accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent
> assessment years.
>
> Â
>
> May Overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 53279
> (DELHI) , Section 50C enabling the
> revenue to treat the value declared by an assessee for payment of stamp duty,
> ipso facto, cannot be a legitimate ground for concluding that there was
> undervaluation, in the acquisition of immovable property.
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
> 8. Proposed Amendment
> in “Taxation of Securitisation Trusts�
>
> Â
>
> Section 161 of the Income-tax Act provides that in case of a
> trust if its income consists of or includes profits and gains of business then
> income of such trust shall be taxed at the maximum marginal rate in the hands
> of trust.
>
> Â
>
> The special purpose entities set up in the form of trust to
> undertake securitisation activities were facing problem due to lack of special
> dispensation in respect of taxation under the Income-tax Act. The taxation at
> the level of trust due to existing provisions was considered to be restrictive
> particularly where the investors in the trust are persons which are exempt from
> taxation under the provisions of the Income-tax Act like Mutual Funds.
>
> Â
>
> In order to facilitate the securitisation process, it is
> proposed to provide a special taxation regime in respect of taxation of income
> of securitisation entities, set up as a trust, from the activity of
> securitisation. It is proposed to amend section 10 and also insert a new
> Chapter XII-EA for providing a special tax regime. The salient features of the
> special regime are :-
>
> Â
>
> (i) In case of securitisation vehicles which are set up as
> a trust and the activities of which are regulated by either SEBI or RBI, the
> income from the activity of securitisation of such trusts will be exempt from
> taxation.
>
> (ii) The securitisation trust will be liable to pay
> additional income-tax on income distributed to its investors on the line of
> distribution tax levied in the case of mutual funds. The additional income-tax
> shall be levied @ 25% in case of distribution being made to investors who are
> individual and HUF and @ 30% in other cases. No additional income tax shall be
> payable if the income distributed by the securitisation trust is received by a
> person who is exempt from tax under the Act.
>
> (iii) Consequent to the levy of distribution tax, the
> distributed income received by the investor will be exempt from tax.
>
> (iv) The securitisation trust will be liable to pay
> interest at the rate of one percent. for every month or part of the month on the
> amount of additional income-tax not paid within the specified time .
>
> (v) The person responsible for payment of income or the
> securitisation trust will be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of
> amount of tax payable by him or it in case the additional income-tax is not
> paid to the credit of Central Government.
>
> Â
>
> This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2013.
>
>
> Â
>
> May overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT)
> 51024 (BOMBAY) held, that
> administrative directions for fulfilling recovery targets for the collection of
> revenue should not be at the expense of foreclosing remedies which are available
> to assessees for challenging the correctness of a demand. The sanctity of the
> rule of law must be preserved. AOs and appellate authorities perform
> quasi-judicial functions under the Act. Applications for stay require judicial
> consideration. Rejecting such applications without hearing the assessee,
> considering submissions and indicating at least brief reasons is impermissible.
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> 9. Proposed Amendment  in “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in
> case of banks�
>
>
>
>
> Under the
> existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, in computing
> the business income of certain banks and
> financial institutions, deduction is allowable in respect of any provision for
> bad and doubtful debts made by such entities subject
> to certain limits specified therein. The limit specified under section
> 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act restrict the claim of deduction for provision for bad
> and doubtful debts for certain banks (not incorporated outside India) and
> certain cooperative banks to 7.5% of gross total income (before deduction under
> this clause) of such banks and 10% of the aggregate average advance made by the
> rural branches of such banks. This limit is 5% of gross total income (before
> deduction under this clause) under sections 36(1)(viia)(b) and 36(1)(viia)(c)
> for a bank incorporated outside India and certain financial institutions.
>
> Â
>
> Provisions of clause (vii) of
> section 36(1) of the Act provides for deduction for bad debt actually written
> off as irrecoverable in the books of account of the assessee. The proviso to
> this clause provides that for an assessee, to which section 36(1)(viia) of the Act applies, deduction under said clause
> (vii) shall be limited to the amount by which the bad debt written off exceeds
> the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account
> made under section 36(1) (viia) of the Act.
>
> Â
>
> The
> provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act are subject to the provisions of
> section 36(2) of the Act. The clause (v) of section 36(2) of
> the Act provides that the assessee, to which section 36(1)(viia) of the Act
> applies, should debit the amount of bad debt written off to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account
> made under section 36(1) (viia) of the Act.
>
> Â
>
> Therefore, the banks or
> financial institutions are entitled to claim deduction for bad debt actually
> written off under section 36(1)(vii) of the
> Act only to the extent it is in excess of the credit balance in the provision
> for bad and doubtful debts account made under section 36(1)(viia) of the
> Act. However, certain judicial pronouncements have created doubts about the
> scope and applicability of proviso to
> section 36(1)(vii) and held that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies only
> to provision made for bad and doubtful debts relating to rural advances.
>
> Â
>
> Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act
> contains three sub-clauses, i.e. sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) and sub-clause
> (c) and only one of the sub-clauses i.e.
> sub-clause (a) refers to rural advances whereas other sub-clauses do not refer
> to the rural advances. In fact, foreign banks generally do not have
> rural branches. Therefore, the provision for bad and doubtful debts account
> made under clause (viia) of section 36(1) and referred to in proviso to clause
> (vii) of section 36(1) and section 36(2)(v) applies to all types of advances,
> whether rural or other advances.
>
> Â
>
> It has
> also been interpreted that there are separate accounts in respect of provision
> for bad and doubtful debt under clause (viia) for rural advances and urban
> advances and if the actual write off of debt relates to urban advances, then,
> it should not be set off against
> provision for bad and doubtful debts made for rural advances. There is no such
> distinction made in clause (viia) of section 36(1).
>
> Â
>
> In order to clarify the scope
> and applicability of provision of clause (vii), (viia) of sub-section (1) and
> sub-section (2), it is proposed to insert
> an Explanation in clause (vii) of section 36(1) stating that for the purposes
> of the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2)(v), only one
> account as referred to therein is made in respect of provision for bad and
> doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and such account relates to all types
> of advances, including advances made by rural branches. Therefore, for an assessee to which clause (viia) of section
> 36(1) applies, the amount of deduction in respect of the bad debts actually
> written off under section 36(1)(vii) shall be limited to the amount by
> which such bad debts exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and
> doubtful debts account made under section 36(1)(viia) without any distinction
> between rural advances and other advances.
>
> Â
>
> This
> amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will,
> accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent
> assessment years.
>
> Â
>
> May overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 51147 (SC)
> had consider whether a bank was eligible to
> claim a deduction for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of its (rural &
> urban) advances and also claim a provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s
> 36(1)(viia) in respect of its rural advances in view of the Proviso to s.
> 36(1)(vii) which provides that only the excess over the credit balance in the
> provision for bad and doubtful debts account made u/s 36(1)(viia) can be
> claimed and held that held that bad debts written off in respect of urban debts
> were eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) without any limits specified in
> proviso thereto, as the same were not covered by the provisions of Sec
> 36(1)(viia).
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> 10. Proposed Amendment in “Deduction for additional wages in
> certain cases�
>
>
>
>
> The
> existing provisions contained in section 80JJAA of the Income-tax Act provide
> for a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent of additional wages paid
> to the new regular workmen employed in any previous year by an Indian company
> in its industrial undertaking engaged
> in manufacture or production of article or thing. The deduction is available
> for three assessment years including the assessment year relevant to the
> previous year in which such employment is provided.
>
> Â
>
> No
> deduction under this section is allowed if the industrial undertaking is formed
> by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing undertaking or amalgamation with another industrial undertaking.
>
> Â
>
> The tax
> incentive under section 80JJAA was intended for employment of blue collared
> employees in the manufacturing sector whereas in practice, it is being claimed
> for other employees in other sectors also. It is, therefore, proposed to amend
> the provisions of
> section 80JJAA so as to provide that the deduction shall be available to an
> Indian Company deriving profits from manufacture of goods in its factory. The
> deduction shall be of an amount equal to thirty per cent of additional wages
> paid to the new regular workmen employed by the assessee in such factory, in the
> previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment year relevant to the previous
> year in which such employment is provided.
>
> Â
>
> It is
> also proposed to provide that the deduction under this section shall not be
> available if the factory is hived off or transferred from another existing entity or
> acquired by the assessee company as a result of amalgamation with another
> company.
>
> Â
>
> This amendment will take effect from 1st
> April, 2014 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2014-15
> and subsequent assessment years.
>
>
> Â
>
> May overrule
> the case reported in (2008)
> 115 TTJ 976 (BANGALORE)
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> 11. Proposed Amendment in S. 50C - Computation of income under the
> head “Profits and gains of business or profession� for transfer of immovable
> property in certain cases
>
> Â
>
> Currently, when a capital asset, being immovable property, is
> transferred for a consideration which is less than the value adopted, assessed
> or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment
> of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, then such value (stamp duty value)
> is taken as full value of consideration under section 50C of the Income-tax Act.
> These provisions do not apply to transfer of immovable property, held by the
> transferor as stock-in-trade.
>
> Â
>
> It is proposed to provide by inserting a new section 43CA that
> where the consideration for the transfer of an asset (other than capital
> asset), being land or building or both, is less than the stamp duty value, the
> value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall be deemed to be the full value
> of the consideration for the purposes of computing income under the head
> “Profits and gains of business of profession�.
>
> Â
>
> It is also proposed to provide that where the date of an
> agreement fixing the value of consideration for the transfer of the asset and
> the date of registration of the transfer of the asset are not same, the stamp
> duty value may be taken as on the date of the agreement for transfer and not as
> on the date of registration for such transfer. However, this exception shall
> apply only in those cases where amount of consideration or a part thereof for
> the transfer has been received by any mode other than cash on or before the
> date of the agreement.
>
> Â
>
> These
> amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will, accordingly, apply
> in relation to the assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years.
>
> Â
>
> May Overrule
> the case reported in (2012) 6
> TaxCorp (DT) 51567 (ALLAHABAD) held that section
> 50C has no application as it was a case of transfer of plots which was stock in
> trade. An income earned from such transaction is liable to be taxed as income
> from business activity.
>
> Â
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> “Knowledge
> is power, Information is liberating, Education is the premise of progress, in
> every society, in every family.�