2018 (4) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e property in favour of Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transfer' for the purposes of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)(vi) Explanation below Section 2(47) and Section 269UA had taken place? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that no possession had been given by the transferor to the transferee of the entire land in part performance of the JDA read with possession letter and irrevocable special power of attorney so as to fall within the domain of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 completely disregarding the facts that as per the JDA there was a grant and assignment of all rights in the entire property in favour of THDC alongwith handing over of physical and vacant possession? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that no possession had been given by the transferor to the transferee of the entire land in part-performance of Joint Development Agreement so as to fall within the domain of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 when by virtue of the du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n holding that the assessee was liable to capital gains tax only on portion of plot in respect of which sale deed has been executed and not in respect of the remaining portion of land for which no consideration had been received and in respect of JDA which stood cancelled and incapable of performance when the Hon'ble High Court had accepted the 'transfer' in respect of a portion of the piece of plot on the basis of the JDA dated 25.02.2007 but had not accepted the same JDA in respect of the remaining portion of the land particularly when the JDA and consequential consideration of transfer was for the entire piece of land? (ix) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble I.T.A.T is right in not accepting that there was a transfer of the entire piece of land in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 particularly when the Hon'ble High Court had treated that transfer has taken place in respect of a portion of the same land? (x) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble I.T.A.T is right in holding that the question of deduction under Section 54F of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1908' to decide the proposition of law that 'Transfer' mandatorily requires Registration and perpetuated the 'mischief' sought to be remedied by the incorporation of clauses (v) and (vi) in Section 2(47) against the Heydon's Rule? (xvi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is right in holding that the provisions of Section 2(47)(vi) of the Income Tax Act were not applicable in absence of registered conveyance deed relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in Alapativerkatraman (57 ITR 108) disregarding the subsequent decision of Supreme Court in Podar Cement Ltd. Holding that the principal of Common law, transfer of property Act and Registration Act were not conclusive for interpretation of provisions of Income Tax Act? (xvii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is right in holding that the provisions of Section 2(47)(ii) are not applicable when all the member of society surrendered their individual rights in the plots together with original purchase deeds in favour of society to be subsequently transferred to Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) leading to extinguishment of right....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... per square feet for Rs. 1,01,25,000/-. The assessee disclosed capital gain of Rs. 30,92,535/- in her ITR declaring income of Rs. 31,33,562/- in response to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as the assessee had received Rs. 33,00,000/- only in pursuance of the said agreement. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,52,82,465/- (Rs. 1,83,75,000/- minus Rs. 30,92,535/-) on account of capital gain in the case of the assesssee. Aggrieved by the above additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 15.03.2016, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,52,82,465/- on account of capital gain by following the judgment of this Court in the case of Sh. C.S. Atwal and others Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another, ITA No. 200 of 2013 (O&M) decided on 22.07.2015 in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 12.01.2017, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of income....