468
June 29 To July 5, 2019 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 45 u 56The Bombay High Court held that the main
object of the assessee was to provide golf
facilities to the members for promotion of
the sport. The Tribunal correctly held that
there was no element of the assessee’s activ-
ity being in the nature of trade, commerce
or business. Once the applicability of the
proviso to section 2(15) was ruled out, the
question of the exemption under section 11
would arise.period of shares transfer by Holding
NDTV’s promoter from self to joint
DEMAT A/c reckoned from date of
transferRadhika Roy v. Dy. CIT [2019] 106 taxmann.
com 210 (Delhi - Trib.)
Assessee was promoter of NDTV Ltd. She along
with her husband had transferred shares of
NDTV from their individual demat accounts
to their Joint Demat account. She sold said
shares and claimed the gain arising from it
as long-term capital gains considering period
of holding of shares as date of acquisition
in their individual demat accounts. She also
claimed cost of acquisition as cost incurred
by her in individual demat accounts.
The Mumbai ITAT held that shares trans-
ferred by assessee from joint demat account
were short-term capital assets as they were
acquired only on 28-12-2007 through joint
Demat Account and were sold on 19-6-2008
resulting in short-term capital gain in hands
of assessee.
‘Period of holding’ of shares sold from demat
account jointly held by assessee along with
her husband to be computed on FIFO basis
based on date the securities moved into the
demat account and not from date of acqui-
sition in Individual demat account. Further,
the ‘cost of acquisition’ of those shares to be
considered as sold out on the basis of FIFO
method of that demat account.ssee engaged in development of Asse
housing project units isn’t exempt
from payment of MATGee City Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2019]
106 taxmann.com 69 (Chd. - Trib.)
The assessee was a Private Limited company
dealing in development of housing project
units. It filed its return of income for the
impugned assessment years declaring income
of `2.20 lakhs.
Assessing Officer (AO) framed assessment
under section 153A, read with section 143(3)
and assessed the total income at ` 12.75
lakhs and the tax payable under MAT was
determined at ` 96.28 lakhs. The Tax com-
puted under MAT being higher than that
under the normal provisions, the same was
determined as payable by the assessee. On
appeal, the assessee contended that it was
exempt from paying tax under MAT as per
section 115JB(6).
The Chandigarh Tribunal held that benefit of
exemption from MAT was provided only for
business, carried on by persons who had got
approvals under SEZ Act and which were
carried on in SEZ or units therein.
Therefore, in case assessee was engaged in
development of housing project units which
were neither units in SEZ nor assessee was
developer of SEZ, its income would not be
exempt from payment of MAT.chase of semi-finished flat to be Pur
treated as purchase of property for
construction for sec. 54 claimAkshay Sobti v. Asstt. CIT [2019] 106 tax-
mann.com 60 (Delhi - Trib.)
Assessee sold a residential property and invested
sale consideration for booking a semi-finished
residential flat from a builder. He claimed
exemption under section 54. Assessing OfficerWEEKLY REVIEW