9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee. It does not matter if the registration of the sale deed has not been made in favour of the assessee because transfer of the property is to be taken from the date of agreement in favour of the assessee. Moreover the assessee has made frantic efforts to take the possession of the property from the developer by approaching Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad as well as National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case cited as Balraj v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2001 (12) TMI 51 - DELHI High Court] held that for the purpose of attracting the provisions of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property as registration of the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed portion is to be taxed after three years from the date of transfer of the original asset. 5. That the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is against the law and facts of the case. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : during the scrutiny proceedings A.O. noticed that the assessee claimed income under the head Capital Gains from sale of immovable property and jewellery out of which assessee made investment for purchasing a residential house/ plot for a sale consideration of ₹ 75,85,818/- to M/s. Unitech Acacia Project Private Limited which was provisionally allotted to him. Assessee also invested balance amount of ₹ 25 lacs in the capital gain account schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n comes to ₹ 99,57,265/-; that the assessee invested ₹ 75,85,818/- u/s 54 of the Act and deposited capital gain of ₹ 25 lac ; that the assessee sold gold jewelry of ₹ 9,43,600/- after claiming deduction of indexed cost and has declared capital gain of ₹ 76,450/- claimed u/s 54 of the Act; that the assessee was allotted a plot No. 0030 at Main street No. 05 in Unitech Golf and Country Club by making payment of ₹ 75,85,548/-; that assessee has invested the balance amount of ₹ 25 lac in the capital account scheme. 6. From the undisputed facts, and the order passed by the revenue authorities below the first question arises for determination in this case is As to whether A.O./CIT(A) have erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . From the letter dated 25.4.2016 issued by Unitech Golf and Country Club and provisional possession certificate duly signed by project Engineer of the developer at page 20A and 20B of the paper it is proved that provisional possession of the plot in question has been delivered to the assessee. 11. When it is not in dispute that the assessee has paid an amount of ₹ 75,85,818/- which is 95% of the total sale consideration for purchase of the property to M/s. Unitech High-Tech Developer (Rs. 7,41,250/- on 20.1.2011 and ₹ 68,44,298/- on 23.3.2011) through banking channel and also deposited ₹ 25,00,000/- under capital gain the right in personam was created in favour of the assessee from the date of entering into an agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
