1990 (7) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to a firm. The assessee claimed to have sold superstructure on a leased plot to M/s Lalji Ghelabhai for Rs. 28,000 vide agreement dated 10th Oct., 1980. The ITO found that in the firm M/s Lalji Ghelabhai the Directors of the assessee company were substantially interested. This agreement was not duly registered and hence the ITO was of the opinion that since the transfer and sale of immovable property had not been done by a registered deed, the assessee company continued to be the owner of that structure. An alternative plea was made before the ITO that an allowance in respect of the interest on the amount received towards sale consideration should be allowed at the market rate. But this contention also did not find favour. It was contended ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Khan vs. CWT(1986) 57CTR (SC) 89: (1986) 162 ITR 888 (SC) and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Ram Kumar Mills P. Ltd. vs. CIT(A) (1989) 78 CTR (Kar) 141: (1989)) 180 ITR 464 (Kar). 5. We have considered the facts and circumstances and studied with a great care the aforesaid rulings and are of the view that the assessee cannot succeed in the present appeals. The sale-deed purports to transfer the ownership of the superstructure, which is an immovable property of a value of more than Rs.100. The document is thus compulsorily registerable under s. 17 of the Registration Act. Admittedly, the sale-deed has not been registered and, therefore, it fails to achieve its purported objects of transfer of ownership from the as....