9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he holding period of the asset for more than 36 months. The entire material available on record and we find that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramakrishna (2014 (3) TMI 812 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein it has been that in order to determine taxability of capital gain arising from sale of property, it is date of allotment of property which is relevant for purpose of computing holding period and not date of registration of conveyance deed. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 3994/Del./2014 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2017 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member For The Assessee : S/Sh. Ved Jain, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in not following judgment of the jurisdictional ITAT, which being directly on the same issue was binding on him. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in computing the capital gains at ₹ 10,57,563/- as against assessee's computation of ₹ 6,30,239/-. 2. From the above grounds of appeal, the only issue which emerges out for adjudication is whether the ld. Authorities below are justified in computing short term capital gain of ₹ 10,57,563/- on the sale of impugned property as against long term capital gain of ₹ 6,30,239/- declared by the appellant on the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior to purchase on 29-1-2004, but she did not become owner of the property prior to this merely by paying installments. Thus, as mentioned in the sale deed executed by the assessee on 9-6-2005, the assessee purchased this property on 29-1-2004 and became its owner only on this very date. She transferred this property on 9-6-2005, i.e. within three years of its acquisition. Thus, the capital gain earned by the assessee on this property will be short-term capital gain and is so assessed. The total sale price of this property as shown is ₹ 30,00,000/-. Total cost of acquisition as per information supplied by the assessee works out to ₹ 19,42,437/-. The difference is ₹ 10,57,563/- which is assessed as short term capital gai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation Services of India Ltd., 2008(4)TMI 743 ITAT Mumbai. On the strength of these decisions, the ld. AR urged for deletion of addition sustained by the ld. Authorities below. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record and we find that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramakrishna (supra), wherein it has been that in order to determine taxability of capital gain arising from sale of property, it is date of allotment of property which is relevant for purpose of computing holding period and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded by the HUDA, the assessee was to become the beneficial owner of the residential plot in question ; that as per clause 5 of the allotment was to become the beneficial owner of the residential plot in question; that as per clause 5 of the allotment letter, a letter of acceptance was to be filed by the assessee along with an amount of ₹ 10,155, within thirty days, thereby having paid 25 per cent, of the total cost of the plot ; that this amount had to be deposited by the assessee in his capacity as the owner of the plot, on allotment, which was done, as evidenced by the receipt of payment; that as per clause 11 of the allotment letter, the right of the assessee in the allotted plot was an absolute right as owner thereof ; that thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fe deed dated January 9, 2008. This court is of the opinion that having regard to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the assessee had acquired the beneficial interest to the property at least 96 per cent of the amount was paid, i.e., by October 3, 1999. This court is supported in its findings by a Division Bench ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT[2014] 363 ITR 54/43 taxmann.com 417. 8. Respectfully following the above decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High court, the issue under consideration is decided in favour of the assessee and accordingly, the impugned addition deserves to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
