9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property which constitutes1/3rd of the total extent for a consideration of . 3,07,55,540/- and no proof of payment were mentioned in the sale agreement. The sale agreement was not registered with the Government authorities. Possession was not handover as the property was occupied by M/s. Voltas Limited. The assessee also gave a power of attorney to Shri S. Saranavan on 29.4.2008. The assessee claims that the deemed transfer took place as per the date of sale agreement in the financial year 2008-09 and the capital gain is assessable in the assessment year 2009-10. Admittedly, the assessee has not registered the sale agreement in this case. We are of the considered opinion that since, the sale/transfer took place only on the date of sale deed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt for extending the lease period. The ld. DR vehemently argued that it is clear from the above findings of the ld. CIT(A) that when the property in question was in possession of M/s. Voltas, the assessee could not have given the physical possession of the property, which is a mandatory condition under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It was further submission of the ld. DR that the amendment to section 53A of Transfer of Property Act w.e.f. 24.09.2001, by removing the words - "the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or" clearly mandates that the agreement should be registered for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further submission of the ld. DR that section 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CIT v. Shri P.N. Thiagarajan & Smt. P.T. Geetha Ramani in Tax Case Appeal Nos. 675 & 676 of 2017 & CMP No. 17564 of 2017 confirming the order of the Tribunal, which was relied on by the ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order. 4. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee owned property, which was acquired by the assessee's father in 1975, held along with 18 joint owners at Mount Road in Nandanam, Chennai. The property was in long term lease with M/s. Voltas Limited for 25 years on 16.12.1975. The lessee has filed a civil suit in Madras High court for extending the lease period for further 30 years. The assessee agreed to sell the property to M/s. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. P.T. Geetha Ramani & Shri P.N. Thiagarajan by the Department, vide Tax Case Appeal Nos. 675 & 676 of 2017 & CMP. No. 17564 of 2017 dated 14.12.2017, no doubt,+ the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. However, in that case, the Department has not placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (supra), which was delivered on 04.10.2017 much before the Hon'ble High Court delivered its judgment on 14.12.2017 or the Hon'ble High Court had no occasion to peruse the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court before delivering its judgement. In the case of CIT v. Balbir Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
