9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f land, namely, plot No. 91, Block 5, Greater Kailash,New Delhi. Cost of acquisition of the said plot was Rs. 6,600. In addition, there had been some cost of improvement also. The ITO took such cost of improvement at Rs. 3,470 for purpose of computation under section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The ITO, however, did not accept the assessee's contention to the effect that an expenditure of Rs. 2,869 had been incurred in connection with the transfer of the said plot. Under the circumstance, the ITO worked out gross capital gains at Rs. 59,930 instead of at Rs. 57,060 as claimed by the assessee. Further, the ITO denied to the assessee special deduction as admissible under section 80T of the Act, as in the ITO's opinion said tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording to the assessee, the payment of property tax, as aforesaid, in 1968 to the Municipal Corporation clearly established that the asset in question had been held by the assessee for more than 5 years before its transfer in financial year 1976-77-CIT v. Chunilal Khushaldas [1974] 93 ITR 369 (Guj.) cited on the assessee's side. We see force in the assessee's reasoning. Though the case of Chunilal involves consideration of dispute relating to shares, their Lordships while interpreting section 2(42A), clearly rejected the revenue's contention to the effect that the word 'held' as occurring in the said definition should be taken to mean held as a registered owner. On the revenue's side, our attention was drawn to third and fourth recitals in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said date execution of registered conveyance in respect of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 was not necessary in law to effect the transfer and that in the instant case transfer of the plot, along with its possession, had become effective in March 1961, by which time Rs. 6,270 out of Rs. 6,600 had also been paid by the assessee as consideration to the predecessor company which ultimately executed the sale deed. According to the last recital in the sale deed, the predecessor company had agreed to sell and the vendee had agreed to purchase the said plot of land for a sum of Rs. 6,600. The assessee's argument was that the predecessor company had handed over the possession of the land and had received Rs. 6,270 as consideration a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
