9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the difference of Rs. 1,96,250 allowing statutory deduction of Rs. 5,000 was brought to tax. 2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no taxable gift based on evaluation of the land value and the exchanged interest. The finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this regard is as under : " I have gone through the argument placed by the authorised representative as well as the order of the Gift-tax Officer. I find that the Gift-tax Officer has fixed the value of plot in Survey No. 65/1 which was sold in 1980 at the rate of Rs. 6 per sq.ft. He has also fixed the value of plot in Survey No. 63/2 which was sold in 1984 at the rate of Rs. 5.75 per sq. ft. The authorised representative of the appellant against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he document in question of exchange was registered only on 21st April, 1982 and, therefore, the transfer did not take place in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83 and since there was no completed gift in this assessment year, the question of levy of any gift-tax for any transfer by way of exchange in the assessment year 1982-83 did not arise. In support of this proposition reliance was placed on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Darbar Shivrajkumar v. CGT [1981] 131 ITR 647, and a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. [1987] 163 ITR 61. 5. On behalf of the Revenue the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Document in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was executed or that on which the document was registered. The Court discussed the provisions of sec. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as sec. 47 of the Registration Act and in regard to the latter provision the Gujarat High Court observed :---- " Reliance, however, was placed on sec. 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the time of its registration. The true scope of sec. 47 has to be realised in order to comprehend its impact. A question pertaining to the scope of this provision arose before the Supreme Court in Ram Saran Lall v. Mst. Domini Kuer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated back to the date of the execution of the sale deed, the transfer must be deemed to be completed on that date, and, therefore, it was not correct that the right of reconveyance had not accrued to the appellant on November 26, 1964, or that the Collector had no jurisdiction on that date to accept the said application. This contention, however, cannot be accepted in view of the decision in Ram Saran Lall v. Mst. Domini Kuer AIR 1961 SC 1747, where this court rejected an identical contention. Mr. Desai tried to distinguish that case on the ground that it was based on Mohamedan law which by custom applied to the parties there. But the decision is based not on any principle of Mohamedan law but on the effect of sec. 47 of the Registration A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
