TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y sale deed which was not registered. Seller has stated that this was only settlement. The assessee is not eligible for exemption U/s 54." 2. The sole ground of the revenue's appeal is against allowing deduction U/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) on unregistered property purchased from son of the assessee. The assessee filed return of income on 05/12/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 54,27,550/-. The case was scrutinized U/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has shown his income from consultancy for insurance business, house property and income from other sources. The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown long term capital gain of Rs. 52,10,008/- in his computation from sale of property situated at C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer cross verified the sale of plot No. B-37, New Lite Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur to assessee and asked that he has not disclosed capital account on account of sale of this property. During the course of statement, he admitted that this was only a settlement, therefore it was not shown in his income tax return. The ld Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had not purchased any house for claiming deduction U/s 54 of the Act. The ld Assessing Officer further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anrs. 2011 STPL(Web) 879 SC wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that transfer of immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansfer for computing income u/s 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act this transaction cannot be denied given the evidence on record. Therefore, on the basis of facts and the law applicable to these facts the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 75,00,000/- is deleted. 4. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and argued that the assessee had not proved the part performance under the Transfer of Property Act and U/s 53A of the Act. Even transfer as per Section 2(47) of the Act has not been proved by the assessee. The assessee also has not got immovable property registered, therefore, this transaction is only not to pay capital gain tax by the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....75 lacs and is willing to fulfill other conditions and has taken over possession of the same on 29/4/2009. Therefore, the transferee gets the right over the property and has become the owner of the property, therefore, for the purose of deduction U/s 54 read with Section 2(47)(V) of the Act, the property has been transferred to him. He further relied on the decision in the case of Gripwell Industries Limited Vs. ITO 102 TTJ 0441, 99 ITD 0368 ITAT Mumbai Bench wherein transfer U/s 2(47)(iv) has been considered by the Hon'ble Bench. He further relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988) 173 ITR 0397 wherein after selling of residential house, the assessee has agreed to buy another property for self occupation and ....