1984 (3) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... open land appurtenant thereto. There are already some tenants in the building. He entered into an agreement for sale of the entire property for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in June 1971 to Shri Shantikumar Dharamshi and Smt. Shobhna Shantikumar. The final conveyance of the property in favour of Shantikumar has not been made. The possession was, however, handed over to Shantikumar, who had made some a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to include the income from the property in the hands of the assessee. 2. The assessee appealed before the AAC. Having heard the arguments on behalf of the assessee, the AAC followed the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 249 and rejected the assessee's appeal. 3. The assessee has, therefore, filed the present appeals before the Tribunal.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll his immovable property to Shantikumar Dharamshi and Shobhna Shantikumar by an agreement dated June 1971. The final conveyance was, however, not made or registered. The question is whether the assessee has ceased to be the owner of the property. We find that under similar circumstances the Bombay High Court in the case of Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. has held that the assessee continued to be the owne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsideration is received by the vendor later, in the absence of a registered sale deed where the value of the property exceeds Rs. 100, the transferee cannot be regarded as the 'owner' of the property. The vendor continued to be the owner of the property and was liable to be assessed on the income from the house property under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In view of this cle....