TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for cancellation of deeds of this property is more than the market valuation. The addition made on this account be deleted and just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 2) The authorities below erred in making and confirming addition of short term capital gain to the returned income by treating the land transaction as complete only on the basis of an agreement on the stamp paper of Rs. 100 and also when the possession of the property was not given and hence there is no transfer of asset and hence no capital gain. The addition made on this account be deleted and just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 3) The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wards the purchase of the impugned property and has received an amount of Rs. 4,50,50,000/- as his share towards the sale of the above property and accordingly an amount of Rs. 2,30,29,600/- (4,50,50,000 - 2,20,20,400) was determined as short term capital gain on so-called sale of above impugned property. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining total income at Rs. 2,66,59,530/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs. 5,79,930/-. The above assessed income includes two additions i.e. Rs. 30,50,000/- as per the provisions of 56(vii) of the IT Act and another addition of Rs. 2,30,29,600/- as short term capital gain on so-called sale of impugned property. 4. In first appeal after cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paper of Rs. 100/-. It was contended that even as per Hon'ble Supreme Court the ownership does not pass until the deed is registered, even if possession is transferred, and consideration is paid, Sanjay Sharma vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd 2025 (2) TMI 796. In support of its contentions learned AR further relied on the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini vide Civil Appeal No.15619 of 2017 and also on Coordinate Bench decisions passed in the case of Smt. Beena Shammi Choudhary vs. ITO in ITA No.1849/PUN/2018 order dated 17.02.2022 and in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Jawahar Lal in ITA No.1844/MUM/2012 order dated 28.09.2016. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to delete both the additions made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the peaceful possession has been given. Accordingly, it was contended that the Assessing Officer erred in treating that the property has been sold. However, it was also the contention of Ld. AR that even if it is treated that the property has been sold and the assessee has received Rs. 5.00 crores as his share out of total advance of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-, no short-term capital gain can be said to arise since the assessee himself has paid Rs. 5,00,20,400/- for the purchase of the impugned property as well as for cancellation of deed to the consenting parties and accordingly the Ld. AR submitted that no short-term capital gain arises on the so-called sale of the impugned property. 8. In this regard, we find that the assessee sought vid....