2014 (9) TMI 91 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Income Tax Act applicability on land rights transfer

The High Court upheld the applicability of Section 2(47) clause (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in a case involving the transfer of development rights in ... Applicability of Section 2(47)(v) – Transfer of rights in property - Held that:- Assessee's own stand is that the developer's took possession of the land and started development work - This was during the relevant period and the subject assessment year - the transaction is of Transfer of the rights in the property and to the extent of the assessee's share – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld that Section 2(47) (v) is squarely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case – Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Applicability of Section 2(47) clause (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The judgment of the High Court dealt with the challenge raised by the assessee regarding the concurrent findings of fact concerning the applicability of Section 2(47) clause (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The agreement for development dated 11th November 1999 between the assessee and a builder and developer involved the transfer of development rights in a plot of land. The assessee had a 10% undivided share in the land and entered into separate development agreements with two developers. The consideration for this transfer included a sum of money and a constructed flat. The key point highlighted was the developer's possession of the land and initiation of development work during the relevant period, as admitted by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's conclusion that Section 2(47) (v) applied based on the assessee's own admission and the facts presented. The court found that the transaction constituted a transfer of rights in the property to the extent of the assessee's share, affirming the applicability of Section 2(47) (v) based on the established facts.The court emphasized that the findings of fact, supported by the evidence presented, were not perverse and did not contain any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the admitted facts. The court also rejected the attempt to raise new questions during the appeal, stating that such mixed questions could not be entertained when the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. Ultimately, the court held that the appeal failed and was dismissed based on the discussion and analysis presented in the judgment.