2014 (3) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned by the assessee himself in view of the judgment reported in [(1990) 186 ITR 693]? (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the tribunal was right in holding that the date of transfer of funds i.e. February 2004 is the date of acquisition as against the fact that the right to obtain the conveyance of immovable property was acquired in2001 by virtue of a MOU executed on 22/06/2001? (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the transaction is only a short term capital gain rather than a long term capital gain as claimed by the assessee?" 2. This appeal is directed against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. The relevant year of consideration is assessment year 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../02/2005 it amounts to long term capital gain. Therefore, after computing the cost of acquisition of right to purchase the property at Rs. 4,17,58,600/- on the date of MOU long term capital loss of Rs. 45,51,944/- has to be taken into consideration. However, rejecting the contention of the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that there was no right to purchase acquired by virtue of MOU on 22/06/2001 unless and until the terms and conditions of MOU were completely fulfilled. Treating the gain on transfer of whatever right acquired by the assessee by virtue of MOU opined that such right is a limited one and computed short term capital gain at Rs. 7,41,400/-. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went in appeal before CIT (Appeals). However, CI....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n asset. Therefore, as he was a party to the document of sale in 2005, it has to necessarily be considered as a long term capital gain. He also places reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vijay Flexible Containers [(1990) 186 ITR 693]. 7. We have gone through the relevant facts and also the opinion of the High Court of Delhi and High Court of Bombay in the above two decisions. On a perusal of MOU, it is very clear that possession of the property was not handed over to the assessee as on the date of MOU in 2001. As on the date of MOU Rs. 62,50,000/- came to be paid to the Central Bank of India and so far as Rs. 3 crores to be paid to the owner of the property, no amount as such came to be paid. The said amount came to be paid only in....