9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals). It appears from the facts of the case that the appellant is a nonresident and has inherited property along with other two coowners. An agreement was entered into by the assessee with one M/s. P. S. Inns Pvt Ltd for development of property under joint development agreement dated 14th June, 1995. The Assessing Officer as well as D.V.O. has taken the property value as on 1.4.81 as ₹ 63 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant is a non-resident and owned 31% share in the said immovable property with other two co-owners and further it was agreed in terms of the development agreement that the owners to get 50% of the newly constructed building and balance 50% would go to the developer. After completion of such construction the joint owners sold their shares consisting of 11584 sft. during the financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mparable case of value of property. It appears from the order that CIT (Appeal) relied on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Universal vs. Appropriate Authority reported in (2000) 110 Taxman 315 (SC) where the Apex Court held that immovable property means any right in or with respect to any building or part of a building which is yet to be constructed, which right accrue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and held as follows: The fact cannot be denied that Chapter-XXC of the Income Tax Act defines transfer and only in the case of transfer this Chapter (now abolished) comes in operation. As per Sec.269UA(f) of Income Tax Act Exchange is also transfer. In the instant case the assessee along with other co-owners has exchanged their 50% right on the old property with the 50% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
