Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2005 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 105 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTCapital Gains - Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding the amount as capital receipt not exigible to capital gains tax as no transfer of any property was involved within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - HELD THAT:- We respectfully concur with the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Bombay High Court in Vijay Flexible Containers [1989 (9) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while answering the question referred to this court in favour of the CIT and against the assessee. Indeed, facts of the case involved in the present case and the one which were subject-matter of Vijay Flexible Containers are so identical that there is no room for finding out any distinguishing feature so as to take contrary view. The expression "property of any kind" used in section 2(14) is of wide import. When we read this expression along with the expression defined in section 2(47)(ii), i.e., extinguishment of any rights therein, we have no hesitation in holding that the giving up of the right to claim specific performance by an assessee to get conveyance of immovable property in lieu of receiving consideration resulted in extinguishment of rights in property thereby attracting the rigour of section 2(14) read with section 2(47) ibid. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the CIT (Revenue) and against the assessee. In other words, we answer the question by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in holding the amount as capital receipt not exigible to capital gains tax as no transfer of any property was involved within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. Instead, we hold by answering the question that the amount is a capital receipt exigible to capital gains tax as it involved transfer of property within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. No costs.
|