1986 (7) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 4,878 and Rs. 15,810 for the asst. yr. 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83 respectively made by the ITO on account of profits earned on instalments received for the sale of plot. It has, therefore, been, prayed that the orders of the AAC be set aside and those of the ITO restored. 4. Before considering the issues involved, it would be worthwhile to state in brief the facts, of the case. During the three accounting periods relevant to the assessment years under appeal, the assessee was engaged in the business of developing housing colonies. The activities of the assessee were related to the purchase of land and its sale to the persons who wanted to construct houses on those plots. By the end of the accounting period relevant to the asst. yr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....27 to tax which is equivalent to 30 per cent of the total investment by the appellant during the accounting period relevant to the asst. yr. 1978-79. 5. For the asst. yr. 1981-82 and 1982-83, the ITO brought to tax such amounts at Rs. 4,878 and Rs. 15,810 respectively. These incomes were added to the returned income of the assessee. 6. These additions were challenged in appeals before the AAC. It was urged before him that no income was includible in the income of the assessee in the ratio of the Gujarat High Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Asha Land Corporation (1981) 25 CTR (Guj) 294 : (1982) 133 ITR 55 (Guj) as the sale deed had not been executed and registered. Another judgment relied upon was of the Bombay High Court report....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se it was found as a fact that the assessee was in occupation of the building as owner to all intents and purposes, except the sale deed in his favour, then he was liable to tax under s. 22. It was held that the assessee occupied the property after execution of the agreement of sale in the his favour in the year 1964 and after completion of the building, he was in a position to earn income from the property sold to him. Further the entire consideration was paid to the vendor earlier at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell in 1964 and no payment was made at the time of execution of the registered sale deed in 1969. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the self-occupied property was includible in the....