9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for an amount of Rs. 2 lacs 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. Th possession was, however, handed over to Shantikumar, who had made some additions and alterations in the property. The assessee had ceased to recover the rents from the tenants. The assessee stated that as he had ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the agruments on behalf of the assessee, the AAC followed the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Sultan Bros. P. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 249 (Bom) 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 the Supreme Court decision in the case of Jodha Mal Kuthali a Further refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sell his immovable property to Shantikumar Dharamshi and Shobhna Shanti kumar by an agreement dt. June, 1971. The final conveyance was, however, not made or registered. The question is whether the assessee is ceases to be the owner of the property. We find under similar circumstances, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sultan Bros. P. Ltd. has held that the assessee continued to be the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration is received by the vendor later, in the 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 s. 22 of the IT Act. In view of this clear pronouncement of the law on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
