TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, exemption u/s 54 has been claimed by the assessee. He further noted that the assessee has deposited the same in capital gain account with Canara Bank, Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Subsequently, in F.Y. 2013-14, i.e., assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee has withdrawn the capital gain amount and declared Rs. 57,10,042/- as income for A.Y. 2014-15. However, while calculating the capital gain, the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition and applied the cost inflation index of F.Y. 2007-08 for the entire amount of Rs. 86,20,638/- deposited from 30th October, 2007 to 18th May, 2010 along with cost of transfer charges. In view of the above, the AO asked the assessee to submit the following details:- (i) As per copy of Sale Deed and Computation of Income filed during the course of assessment proceedings, you have sold commercial shop bearing No. DCT-112, on 1st Floor, having covered area 123.800 sq. mtrs in the multi storied building known as DLF CITY COURT for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. (ii) As per computation of income you have shown 50% share as sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- and also claimed expenditure on transfe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred, both on facts and in law, in ignoring the settled position of law that holding period has to be computed from date of issue of allotment letter and not from date when agreement to sell was registered ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in ignoring the fact that the rights, title and interest in the property was itself from the date of Allotment letter of property, 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering the judicial precedents relied upon by the 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in enhancing the income of the assessee by arbitrarily indulging into surmises and conjectures. 8) That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal." 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to treat the gain on transfer of asset as short-term capital gain. He submitted that the issue in the instant case stands decided in favour of the assessee by a pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of indexation has to be granted to the assessee on the basis of payments made by him for acquiring the said asset. Therefore, the assessee should be given the benefit of indexation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jitendra Mohan vs. ITO reported in 2006 (11) TMI 371, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657, CIT vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi, reported in 279 ITR 552 and various other decisions. He accordingly submitted that the order passed by the lower authorities being bad in the eye of law has to be set aside and the gain on the sale of flat should be treated as long-term capital gain by allowing indexation benefit from the date of allotment/date of buyer's agreement and not from the date of payments/date of registration. 8. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that the property was allotted to the assessee on 30th October, 2007 and the assessee entered into commercial space buyer's agreement with DLF City on 22.01.2008 and made the payments during the period from 30th October, 2007 to 18th ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that has to be considered as the date of acquisition and not the date of actual registration in favour of the assessee. I find, the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramakrishna, reported in 363 ITR 59, wherein it has been held that in order to determine the taxability of capital gain arising from sale of property, it is the date of allotment of the property which is relevant for the purpose of computing holding period and not the date of registration of conveyance deed. I find, following the above decision, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ranjana Bammi vs. ACIT has held that for determining the taxability of capital gain arising from sale of property, it is the date of allotment of property which is relevant for the purpose of computing holding period and not the date of registration of conveyance deed. I find, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul vs. CIT, reported in 363 ITR 54, has held the mere fact that possession was delivered later does not detract from the fact that the allottee was conferred a right to hold property ....