TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not pressed. After hearing the Ld. DR in this regard, the said ground no.3 as well as the additional ground raised by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Referring to ground no.1 and 2, Ld. Counsel mentioned that the only issue involved in these grounds is whether the capital gains earned by the assessee are in the nature of the short term capital gain as held. by the AO or long term capital gains as offered by the assessee in the return. At the outset, Ld. Counsel explained the brief facts and mentioned that the assessee is an individual having source of income from share of profit, capital gain and other sources, declared the total income of Rs. 74,03,519/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the assessed inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 (AY 2007-2008), wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by relying on various decisions and identical facts. He strongly relied on the said orders of the ITAT for the proposition that the date of allotment is relevant for computation of capital gains. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers [1990] 48 Taxman 86 (Bom) and also relied on another judgment of the High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Services Limited [1979] Taxman 427 (Bom.). 6. We heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the judgments of the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rojects Pvt. Ltd. There was a construction agreement between the parties dated 1.12.2003 and the registered deed of the same was dated on 22.9.2006. The said flat was sold. by the assessee to Bennet Coleman & Company on 10.11.2006. The assessee earned capital gains on this transaction and offered the same as long term capital gains reckoning the date of allotment i.e., 9.9.2003 for the purpose of determining the holding period of three years relevant for the long term capital gains. However, in the assessment proceedings, AO considered the date of registration i.e., 22.9.2006 the date of registration and determined the short term capital gains. Therefore, now the issue to be decided by the Tribunal relates to if the date of allotment should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the flat by the assessee should. be considered as date of holding for computing the holding period of 36 moths. In alternative, the "date of registration" should. be the relevant date. On perusal of the said decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, we find that the decisions are relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case. The conclusion of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi reads as under: "Assessee having sold. the flat allotted to him by a co-operative housing society after a period of 36 months from the date of allotment, capital gains arising to him were long-term capital gains despite the fact that the physical possession of the flat was given to the assessee mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not from the date of execution of conveyance deed in 2001." 8. All the above decisions are uniform in concluding that the "date of allotment" is reckoned as the date for computing the holding period for the purpose of capital gains. The date of allotment in this case being 19.11.2001 and the date of sale is 23.8.2006, therefore, the holding period is much more than 36 months. In this case, the gains earned by the assessee on the sale of flat have to be computed as capital gains. Without prejudice, even if the date of possession, being 14.8.2003, is considered; the assessee is still entitled to the benefits of the Long Term Capital Gains. Therefore, in our opinion, order of the CIT (A) does not call for any interference. Accordingl....