TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In respect of both the References, the learned tribunal has referred several questions for determination of this court. In our opinion, if question No. 2 is answered, there will be no need to answer the other questions referred to. The question for consideration before us reads as under: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the property would stand transferred only with effect from the date of registration of the Deeds of Conveyance of flats?" 2. A few facts may now be set out. The assessee had 1/3^rd share in the property known as Bhaktawar building. The other shares were held by other persons. The property consists of five flats jointly owned by the co-owners and 32 flats occupied by the tenants. Anothe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperty. Against which, the assessee preferred an appeal before the I.T.A.T. The contentions urged before the Commissioner were also urged before the I.T.A.T. The learned I.T.A.T. confirmed the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The tribunal has been pleased to make the reference. After hearing parties with their consent, the question has been reframed to address the issue which arises. 3. At the threshold on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel submits that the concept of ownership considering the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act read with Registration Act is different in the context of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. What is to be considered for the purpose of Income Tax Act are the provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er was upheld. In the appeal before the I.T.A.T. it held that income from the flats cannot be taxed as income from house property under Section 22 of the Act. Reference was made at the instance of the Revenue to the High Court. The High Court confirmed the view taken by the tribunal and held that the income in question was assessable under Section 56 of the Act. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court for the purpose of considering the contentions considered Section 9(1) of the Old Act as also Section 22, 27 and 56 of the Act of 1961.The learned Supreme Court then from the submissions of the parties observed as under: "..... that the controversy revolves around the meaning to be given to the word "of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana, Patna, Rajasthan etc and held that the requirement of registration of sale deed in the context of Section 22 is not warranted. 8. While so holding, it also noted the amendment carried out to Section 27 of the Act by Finance Act, 1987 by substituting some of the clauses with effect from 1.4.1988. The court addressed to itself, a question whether this amendment was clarificatory or declaratory and after considering various aspects was pleased to hold that it had no hesitation to hold that the amendment in the Finance Bill of 1988 was declaratory/clarificatory in nature, in so far as it relates to Section 27(iii), (iiia) and (iiib) and consequently provisions were retrospective in operation. The learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as complete by the Revenue authorities. We are concerned with the status of the balance 23 flats. Out of these 23 flats, 19 were sold to different parties during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77. The declaration as required under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 was executed by the co-owners some time in July, 1974. Deed of apartment was executed during 1975 in favour of each of the 19 tenants. Registration, however, was done later on after the end of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77. Similarly, the balance flats were sold in the subsequent assessment years." 11. From the above facts what emerges is that the flats were initially occupied by the tenants. 19 flats....