2010 (10) TMI 847

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by us it is not necessary to reproduce all the substantial questions of law mentioned in the order dated 28th June, 2005. Suffice it to refer to a few facts stated below.   3. The assessee company was incorporated sometime in the year 1983 or there about with the main objects interalia of carrying on business of civil engineering and as builders. By a sale deed purported to be dated 25th March, 1993, the appellant purchased a plot of land at Altinho, Panaji Goa for Rs.13,90,000/-. It appears that though the sale deed was dated 25th March, 1993, it was lodged for registration only on 5th August, 1993 and was actually registered on 26th February, 1996. In the meanwhile, the appellant submitted the plans for the construction of a re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax payable by the appellant in as much as even it is assumed that it was a capital gain as it would be a short term capital gain. She further submitted that the sale deed for the land though executed on 25th March, 1993, was actually registered on 26th February, 1996. She submitted that the date of acquisition of the asset was 26th February, 1996 and the sale deed effected on 12th July, 1996 has been effected within a period of five months giving rise only to a short term capital gain. She submitted that consequently the questions raised in the appeal need not be answered as merely academic.   5. Mr. Kaka, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no material on record to show what was the actu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i) Divvi Suryanarayana Murthy V/s Competent Authority and Anr., (1976) 102 ITR 19 (AP).   7. Per contra, Mr. Kaka, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the date on which the actually the sale deed was effected and not the date of registration was relevant. In support he relied upon a decision of this Court in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia V/s Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom).   8. In our view, since it is the contention of the appellant that the appellant had held the property for a period of more than three years which is disputed by the revenue and since there is no finding as to the date of acquisition by any of the authorities below, it would be appropriate ....