9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. 3. The Revenue has raised the sole ground disputing the learned CIT(A)'s impugned order in allowing benefit of exemption from tax under s. 53 in respect of sale proceeds of the residential house sold by assessee. The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that the AO had included Rs. 39,721 as capital gain arising from the sale of residential house but the learned CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case though possession of the house at Faridabad was with assessee but the Haryana Housing Board still remains the owner of the house and not the assessee. He has cited CIT vs. Sirehmal Nawalakha (2001) 169 CTR (SC) 493. 5. In rejoinder, the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that even a situation where possession has been handed over to the purchaser in compliance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outhouse was held as not constituting gift for the reason that s. 123 Transfer of Property Act (TPA) provided that a gift of immovable property must be effected by a registered instrument and that in the cited case there was no registered instrument of gift, Obvious as it is the aforesaid decision is in the context of specific provision pi s. 123 TP Act in the matter of gift. At the same time, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hire-purchase basis and on the date of transfer of the house in question wherefrom the capital gain has resulted and in respect of which the assessee has sought exemption under s. 53 IT Act, is not established to have been owned by assessee inasmuch as the ownership still vested in the Haryana Housing Board and not in the assessee. In that view of the matter. I find no mistake in the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
