TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore. On March 19, 2005, it seems she entered into an agreement with one Shri V. Sivakumar, a land developer for developing this land and selling it and the consideration as per this agreement was Rs. 1,11,00,000. All the co-owners, including the assessee, executed a power of attorney in favour of the assessee's husband Shri C. M. Somasekaran on June 4, 2004 vide a registered instrument. Land of 1.60 acres after development came down to 99 cents, on account of roads and amenities and was sold during the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The assessee had for the assessment year 2005-06 returned long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,20,228 and Rs. nil for the assessment year 2006-07 as arising out of the above mentioned transactions. For the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mputing capital gain. Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), submission of the assessee was that the property was transferred to the developer by an agreement dated March 19, 2005 and, therefore, decision of SMC Bench of the Jodhpur Tribunal in the case of Navneet Kumar Takkar v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR (AT) 42 ; [2008] 110 ITD 525 clearly applied. According to the assessee, section 50C could not be invoked since the agreement with developer Shri Sivakumar was not registered. Further, according to the assessee, though the power of attorney holder was the assessee's husband, it did not mean that the sale to third parties actually made by the developer was sale between the assessee and the last buyer. The learned Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of section 2(47) of the Act, transfer was complete when the assessee had handed over the land to the developer and therefore, the sales eventually executed with ultimate purchaser through the developer, by a power of attorney would not have any relevance. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Bench in the case of Sugantha Ravindran v. ITO I. T. A. No. 2145/Mds/2008. Further, according to him, the agreement with Shri Sivakumar having not been registered, invocation of section 50C was not called for. Per contra, the learned Departmental representative submits that facts in both the cases of Mrs. Sugantha Ravindran and Navneet Kumar Takkar v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR (AT) 42 (Jodh) ; [2008] 110 ITD 525 were distinguishable and not app....