TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Tribunal was correct in law in holding perversely that the appellant continued to be the owner of urban land under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 despite the fact that the appellate (after transferring the land to the developer through JDA dated 05-12-2000) retained only the right to receive 15.3% of the total built up area, which does not fall within the exhaustive definition of "assets" under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law whether the learned Tribunal ignored the binding decisions of this Hon'ble Court rendered on interpretation of section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 squarely applicable to the facts of the case and perversely applied ratio rendered in interpretation of section 2(47)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law whether the learned Tribunal was correct in holding there was no transfer of the urban land by the appellant despite the fact that the developer was put in possession of the said property under Clause 13.2 of the JDA date 05-12-2000? 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income Tax (Appeals) (Appeals) and the same were partly allowed. Feeling aggrieved, appellants approached the ITAT and by the impugned common order ITAT has dismissed those appeals. 6. Shri. Ramaswamy further submitted that appellants had filed additional grounds before the ITAT during the course of hearing of the appeal and the same have not been considered. Appellants also filed miscellaneous petitions registered as M.Ps. No.25 to 35/Bang/2016 and they have been dismissed with certain adverse observations. 7. Shri. Ramaswamy took us through the Master Development Agreement dated December 5, 2000 between appellants and the CIDL and urged that appellants had handed over possession of their lands to the Developer. He submitted that under Clause 13.1 of the agreement, parties were required to file applications before the appropriate authority under Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 'IT Act' for short, and the Department had issued 'No objection' under Section 269UL(1) of the Act dated March 12, 2001 and the name of the transferee mentioned therein is CIDL. 8. Shri. Ramaswamy placed reliance on the following authorities: * CIT Vs. Dr. T.K. Da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd III had earlier entered into an Agreement on April 18, 1996 with CIDL for development of property measuring 18 acres 23 guntas into an integrated Business Park with an approximate built-up area of 17,00,000 sq. ft. They had also entered into an MOU in April 1996 and a supplemental MOU in June 1996. In supersession of all previous agreements and instruments, appellants and CIDL have entered into the MDA. As per Clause 3 of the MDA, the Developer has paid Rs.28,49,55,543/- to appellants and also agreed to pay further sum aggregating to Rs.28,88,75,000/- refundable or adjustable in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. As per Clause 4 of the agreement, each appellant was entitled for 15.3% of the built-up area in the respective lands owned by them together with proportionate undivided share in the land. Clause 6 of the agreement shows that after demarcating the appellants' built-up area, the Developer was entitled to sell or deal the remaining built-up area and the proportionate undivided share in the land. Appellants were also entitled to retain their portion or sell the same through the Developer. 14. By its letter dated August 29, 2007, CIDL has determined the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JDA/MDA dated December 5, 2000. As per Clause 10.1(g), the owners have covenanted to convey proportionate undivided interest in favour of proposed purchaser/nominee of the developer. Annexure-A(viii) to the agreement shows that the owner has granted two Powers of Attorney of the same date in favour of the developer for the purpose of development and sale. Clause 13(1) & 13(2) of the MDA, refer to the transfer of possession. 20. Shri. Ramaswamy has also placed the following documents for consideration: * a copy of letter dated January 11, 2000, written by CIDL to Shri. S.S. Dhingra; * reply by Shri. S.S. Dhingra dated January 17, 2000; * copy of order dated April 17, 1999 in O.S. No.830/1996 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bengaluru; * copy of Assessment order dated December 22, 2010 of M/s. Triad Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2008-09; * order passed by CIT(Appeals) dated March 20, 2014 of M/s. Triad Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2008-09. 21. Placing reliance on the above documents, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded in the Assessment order that the boundary wall in the property in ....