9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes that ‘right in a property' is a capital asset. Since this right has been acquired by the assessee pursuant to allotment letter dated 12.4.2008 and the same has been held by the assessee up to 9.12.2013 (i.e for more than three years), the gain arose pursuant to such transfer would have to be construed only as long term capital gain, which has been rightly considered by the ld CIT-A. See VINOD KUMAR JAIN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2010 (9) TMI 850 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] It is not in dispute that the assessee had duly reinvested the sale consideration in new property proposed to be purchased for ₹ 3,70,00,000/- and out of which ₹ 2,33,14,159/- was paid on 10.12.2013 itself ( i.e the date of agreement). He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 7,56,907/- Less: Deductions under Chapter VIA ₹ 1,18,479/- ₹ 6,37,428/- 3.1. The assessee along with a co-owner Mr Manoj Kumar Bothra (husband of assessee) jointly received an allotment offer letter from South City Projects (Kolkata) Ltd vide their letter No. UN/5/00007 dated 12.4.2008 for allotment of Unit no. B at Floor No. 15 of Tower No. 5, CYPREES in the residential complex of South City Projects (Kolkata) Ltd, 375, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata 700068 having super built up area of 3175 sq.ft against unit price of ₹ 1,61,13,125/- along with car parking space for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that envisages that Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him and the transferee has in part performance of the contract taken possession of the property or any part thereof then the transfer has been completed. So, it is evident that the term possession of the property is an important factor in the case where property has been transferred in terms of provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. The assessee replied to the ld AO by stating that she had acquired the right to the said flat vide allotment letter dated 12.4.2008 and since this is the right in consequent to which the assessee got possession of the flat as on 13.5.2013, the transfer as per p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Kolkata) Ltd at 375, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata 700068 having super built up area of 3175 sq.ft against unit price of ₹ 1,61,13,125/- along with car parking space for ₹ 7,00,000/- totaling to ₹ 1,68,13,125/-. So the share of the assessee s share of purchase comes to ₹ 84,06,562/- being 50% of her ownership. He took cognizance of the fact that an information was obtained by the ld AO from South City Projects (Kolkata) Ltd u/s 133(6) of the Act from which the ld AO came to the conclusion that the possession of the property from South City Projects (Kolkata) Ltd was given only on 13.5.2013. The ld CITA appreciated the fact that the assessee and her husband had acquired the right, title and interest in the subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onies in installments is a follow up action. The ld CITA also placed reliance in support of his observations on the following decisions :- a) Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Anita D Kanjani vs ACIT reported in (2017) 79 taxmann.com 67 (Mumbai Trib.) dated 13.2.2017 . b) Decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Smt Madhu Kaul vs CIT, Chandigarh reported in (2014) 43 taxmann.com 417 (P H High Court) c) Decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain vs CIT, Ludhiana reported in 344 ITR 501 (P H ) 5.2. The ld CITA held that the assessee had held the right in the property for more than three years and later transferred the same for a consideration a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly considered by the ld CITA. It is not in dispute that the assessee had duly reinvested the sale consideration in new property proposed to be purchased for ₹ 3,70,00,000/- and out of which ₹ 2,33,14,159/- was paid on 10.12.2013 itself ( i.e the date of agreement). Hence the resultant gain is long term capital gain and since the reinvestment had happened within the stipulated time, the assessee would be entitled for exemption u/s 54 of the Act. We find that the ld CITA had rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain vs CIT reported in 344 ITR 501 (P H) among others, wherein the head notes are reproduced below:- Section 2(29A), read with section 54 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
