Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (11) TMI 462 - AT - Income Tax


Issues:
Confirmation of addition of long term capital gain and business income on sale of land

Analysis:
The case involved the confirmation of addition of long term capital gain and business income on the sale of land by the assessee. The assessee had purchased a piece of land in 2003, converted it into stock in trade in 2010-11, and later a partnership firm was formed to undertake construction on the land. The Assessing Officer considered the transaction as a transfer covered under the definition of 'transfer' u/s. 2(47)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, leading to taxation of income. The AO added the capital gain and business income in the hands of the assessee, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that no registered sale deed was executed transferring ownership to the firm, and possession was not given as an owner. Citing the judgment in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, the Tribunal highlighted that an unregistered agreement does not amount to a transfer under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. As the land was not legally transferred to the partnership firm, the authorities were deemed unjustified in treating it as a sale.

Additionally, the Tribunal discussed the provisions of section 43CA of the Act, emphasizing that it is a deeming provision for computing consideration received on transfer of non-capital assets. However, for the provision to apply, there must be an actual transfer of the property. Since the land was not transferred in this case, the deeming provision under section 43CA was not applicable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee. The judgment clarified that the authorities were not justified in adding the capital gain and business income in the hands of the assessee, as there was no actual transfer of the land to the partnership firm during the relevant assessment year.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates