9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof and, therefore, unjust, uncalled for and legally untenable." (2) That without prejudice to the above, the action of the learned CIT(A) in also holding that capital gain relates to the year under appeal is again without any basis or material and, therefore, uncalled for and illegal." (3) That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts of the case, evidence filed and explanations rendered and his action culminating in upholding the order that the appellant has earned a capital gain of Rs. 3,43,113 is purely on hypothesis, imagination and surmises and, therefore, deserves to be struck down. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the learned CIT(A) in maintaining the following additions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase of the said property from the assessee in November, 1987. After adjusting the deposit of Rs. 8,00,000 a sum of Rs. 17,18,000 was paid under an agreement to sell. The balance of Rs. 1,00,000 was payable at the time of registration. 6. On this factual backdrop the AO held that the assessee sold the property for Rs. 26,18,000 even though the registration thereof was not completed. After deducting the cost of acquisition and other necessary deductions, the chargeable long-term capital gain was worked out at Rs. 3,43,113. 7. While making this addition the AO also noted that M/s Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. stopped paying rent on those premises to the assessee soon after entering into the sale agreement. Therefore, the assessee impli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the date of registration of sale deed could not be considered to be the date of transfer. This decision was rendered prior to the insertion of sub-s. (v) in s. 2(47). The provision of sub-cl. (v) of s. 2(47) are substantive in nature and are operative from asst. yr. 1988-89. It is pertinent to note that s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Art deals with the doctrine of part-performance. This is an English doctrine and it was partially imported into India. This section does not confer any title on the transferee in possession, but merely put a statutory bar on the transferor. This doctrine is a shield and not a sword. It is a right to protect the transferee's position against any challenge to it by transferor contrary to the terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonings given by the CIT(A). I am inclined to agree with the same. Accordingly, I uphold the impugned order on this count. 12. Coming to ground No. 4 I find that Rs. 6,000 was disallowed out of telephone expenses. In the case of a company no disallowance in the hands of directors is possible in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Cellulose Products of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 132 CTR (Guj) 452 : (1996) 218 ITR 490 (Guj). Accordingly, I direct the AO to delete the addition made on this count. 13. The fee paid to the registered valuer was for revaluation of the fixed assets of the assessee. This is a revenue expenditure in view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Asiatic Oxygen Acetylene Co. Ltd. (1980) 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
