TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply to the case of the petitioner since the agreement in question was dated March 7, 1986 - Held that provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act shall not apply to the agreement for transfer. That the provisions of Chapter XX-C and rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules would not have retrospective effect as in those cases transfer was complete prior to October 1, 1986, such provisions had no application. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in block "A" of 9, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi-110 001. The total consideration fixed was Rs. 11,36,000 which payment was made by the petitioner to the aforesaid seller on the date of execution of the agreement. Possession was also handed over on the same day and the petitioner became entitled to use and occupy the said apartment without any restriction as provided under clause 14 of the agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this court in the case of Bhatia Apartments (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2001] 252 ITR 244. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case in which one of us (A.K. Sikri, J.) was a Member dealt with the law in detail. After taking stock of the various provisions as well as earlier pronouncements thereon in Multi Rise Towers (P.) Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [1995] 211 ITR 102 (Cal); Capitan Sanjee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) that since the provisions of Chapter XX-C were not applicable, the petitioner was not required by law to file Form No. 37-I and any bona fide mistake of law could not bind the petitioner; (iii) that no interest was payable to the agreement holders on the balance of sale consideration either by the petitioner or by the appropriate authority. The delay in payment was not due to any fault of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
