9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some tenants in the building. He entered into an agreement for sale of the entire property for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in June 1971 to Shri Shantikumar Dharamshi and Smt. Shobhna Shantikumar. The final conveyance of the property in favour of Shantikumar has not been made. The possession was, however, handed over to Shantikumar, who had made some additions and alterations in the property. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands of the assessee. 2. The assessee appealed before the AAC. Having heard the arguments on behalf of the assessee, the AAC followed the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 249 and rejected the assessee's appeal. 3. The assessee has, therefore, filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. On behalf of the assessee, reliance is placed on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shobhna Shantikumar by an agreement dated June 1971. The final conveyance was, however, not made or registered. The question is whether the assessee has ceased to be the owner of the property. We find that under similar circumstances the Bombay High Court in the case of Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. has held that the assessee continued to be the owner. While doing so, they have followed therein own dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of a registered sale deed where the value of the property exceeds Rs. 100, the transferee cannot be regarded as the 'owner' of the property. The vendor continued to be the owner of the property and was liable to be assessed on the income from the house property under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In view of this clear pronouncement of the law on the subject as late as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
