2014 (3) TMI 181 - HC - Income Tax

Relevant date of transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act Nature of gains LTCG or STCG - Whether the date of MOU i.e 22/06/2001 or 11/02/2004 i.e. the date of payment of entire amount of Rs.3 crores as per MOU is to be considered as date of transfer as defined under Section 2(47) of the Act Held that - The possession of the property was not handed over to the assessee as on the date of MOU in 2001 - The terms and conditions of MOU clearly indicates that property will not be transferred either in the name of appellant/assessee or his nominee till entire amount agreed upon as per the terms of MOU is paid - Mere MOU would not confer any right to assessee to transfer the property in favour of third parties - The right is acquired only after payment of entire amounts as per MOU - It would happen only with the fulfilment of terms and conditions under MOU which apparently occurred in 2004. Whatever right accrued to assessee under MOU accrued only with the complete payment of amounts as per the terms and conditions of MOU on 11/02/2004 - Till this right accrued to the assessee, he could not have ventured to transfer any limited right accrued to him under MOU, to third parties - In the absence of any regular document of conveyance in his favour or unless M/s.Damodar Sons & Co joined him in signing the documents of sale deed, he could not have transferred any right even if it was limited right - The execution of sale deed occurred in 2005 - the right accrued to assessee in 2004 came to be transferred along with M/s.Damodar Sons & Co only in 2005 thus, the Assessing Officer was justified in saying it is a short term capital gain and not long term capital gain Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)
2. Determination of the date of acquisition in a property transaction
3. Classification of capital gain as short term or long term

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the interpretation of the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The main contention was whether the definition can be narrowly construed to only include the property owned by the assessee himself, as per a previous judgment. The court examined the facts and circumstances of the case to determine the scope of the definition and its applicability to the property transaction in question.

2. The second issue involved determining the date of acquisition in a property transaction. The case dealt with a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed in 2001 for the acquisition of property, with the actual sale deed executed in 2005. The question was whether the date of transfer should be considered as the date of payment in 2004 or the date of signing the MOU in 2001. The court analyzed the terms of the MOU, payment timelines, and the actual transfer of rights to ascertain the correct date of acquisition for tax purposes.

3. The final issue focused on the classification of capital gain as either short term or long term. The appellant claimed long term capital loss based on the acquisition of a right in 2001, while the assessing officer classified it as short term capital gain in 2005. The court reviewed the sequence of events, payment schedules, and legal rights acquired by the appellant to determine the appropriate classification of the capital gain. The tribunal's decision, confirming the short term capital gain classification, was upheld based on the fulfillment of terms and conditions outlined in the MOU and the subsequent transfer of rights in 2005.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling against the appellant/assessee on all substantial questions of law raised. The judgment emphasized the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations, payment terms, and legal rights acquisition in property transactions to determine the appropriate classification of capital gains for tax purposes.