9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he property was not transferred after the execution of the collaboration agreement and the assessee was liable to the W.T. Act, 1957 - Held that:- The petitioner has not placed on record or stated when, how and in what manner, the transfer was affected and when and how they had shown the capital gains on the purported transfer. Thus, the petitioner and other co-owners were the legal owners on the valuation dates. Section 7(4) of the Act was not applicable and it was also held that the petitioner had transferred possession of the property, but had not transferred the title in the property by execution of the collaboration agreement dated 2nd May, 1984 with Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. - There was no error or mistake in the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest in future in the flats when they were constructed and not the land transferred which had practically nil value as on the valuation date – Held that:-There was no document or paper to show and establish that he had transferred interest in the land to the promoter builder during the period when construction was in progress - No such transfer of rights had taken place - For transfer of rights in land, transfer deeds had to be executed either with the promoter builder or by the petitioner and co-owners with third parties, who after construction would have purchased the flats - Decided against the assessee. - WTR NO. 3-13/2001 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2013 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Anoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aurangzeb Road admeasuring 2.85 acres. On 2nd May, 1984, they entered into a collaboration agreement with Ansal Properties Industries Private Limited for construction of residential flats in the said property. Construction activity was commenced by the promoter builder on 1st May, 1985, after taking over possession. The main residential unit already existing in the property was demolished except for the two rooms in the servant quarters, which were retained by the petitioner for their use and occupation. 4. In the wealth tax return filed by the petitioner-assessee, he had declared 1/3rd share in the property as a taxable asset and had valued his share at Rs.2,03,334/-. 5. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the third issue. 9. The tribunal in the impugned order has observed and held that no material was brought on record by the petitioner-assessee to show that the collaboration agreement between them and Ansal Properties Industries Private Limited amounted to and resulted in transfer of title in the property. It has been observed that possession of the property was handed over to the promoter builder, but the ownership rights in the asset, i.e. the property, continued to vest and remain with the petitioner as a co-owner along with other two co-owners. The collaboration agreement did not result in transfer or change the title. Tribunal has mentioned and recorded a specific finding that the petitioner-assessee had not brought on record th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e physical vacant possession. The building was to be completed within a period of two and a half years from the commencement of construction subject to force majeure conditions and circumstances beyond control. There was a penalty clause also. It was stipulated that Rs.40 lacs deposited as interest free security deposit would be refunded to the promoter builder on completion and handing over of share of the petitioner i.e. the owners. 11. The petitioner has not placed on record or stated when, how and in what manner, the transfer was affected and when and how they had shown the capital gains on the purported transfer. Thus, the petitioner and other co-owners were the legal owners on the valuation dates. 12. In view of the aforesaid, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt dated 2nd May, 1984 with Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. 16. Question (b)(ii) is also to be answered against the petitioner as there is no document or paper to show and establish that he had transferred interest in the land to the promoter builder during the period when construction was in progress. No such transfer of rights had taken place. For transfer of rights in land, transfer deeds had to be executed either with the promoter builder or by the petitioner and co-owners with third parties, who after construction would have purchased the flats. In fact, the letter dated 2nd May, 1974 records that after the building becomes ready, there would be transfer of land, as is clear from clause 21 of the said letter, which reads as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
