9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneficial interest to the property at least 96% of the amount was paid i.e. by 3.10.1999 – Relying upon Madhu Kaul vs. CIT [2014 (2) TMI 1117 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] – there is no need for interference in the order of the Tribunal – Decided against Revenue. - ITA 114/2014 & CM Appl.4959/2014 (delay) - - - Dated:- 18-3-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the kind that can enable him to say that he held the asset for more than 36 months to entitle him to the benefit of long term capital gain. 2. In this case the relevant facts relating to the acquisition of the capital asset, i.e., the HUDA plot and its ultimate disposal of the assessee was considered by the Tribunal and discussed as follows : 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the written synopsis; that by the expiry of the period of sixty days from the date of allotment, i.e., by 03.10.1999, the assessee had deposited 96% of the tentative cost of the plot; that as per the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter, since the assessee paid the instalment as demanded by HUDA, the assessee was to become the beneficial owner of the residential plot in question; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he conveyance deed was not made subject to the handing over of the possession of the plot; that thus, right from 1999, when the plot was allotted to the assessee, the assessee was having absolute rights thereon; that in 'Jitender Mohan', 11 SOT 594 (Del), it has been held that it is the date of allotment which is relevant for the purpose of computing a holding period and not the date of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having regard to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the assessee had acquired beneficial interest to the property at least 96% of the amount was paid i.e. by 3.10.1999. This Court is supported in its findings by a Division Bench ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Madhu Kaul vs. CIT, (ITA 89/1999 decided on 17.1.2014). In view of the reasons the Courts is satisfied that the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
