Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1668 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain from transfer of capital asset - reversionary/relinquishment rights - date of transfer of the assessee’s right in the property, situated at Kurla, is to be taken 09/03/2016 i.e. the date of signing of “development agreement” OR 09/07/2007, on which date the given agreement was registered - whether as per the Transfer of Property Act says that immovable property cannot be transferred otherwise, then by a registered document Held that:- If the language used in the section 2(14) is analyzed, it clearly says that, except for some exceptions, even the reversionary/relinquishment rights is a capital asset. In this case Bombay High Court clearly states that u/s.2(4 7(v) of the I. T. Act even a part performance without even payment of consideration or signing of an agreement if even privilege or right is confirmed to the transfer without any clause or forfeiture or termination of agreement that right or arrangement may be considered as transfer The main clauses of the agreement and payment of 7.5 crores were duly considered by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as the amount were duly mentioned in the receipt column of the last page of the agreement and Dr. Prabhakar T. Bhandary along with Shri Birmu Bhandary, BMCL and BPCL duly confirmed the agreement. This factual matrix was not disputed by the Revenue. The objection of the Assessing Officer of non-registration of the agreement has been duly replied/considered by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarikadas Kapadia (2003 (2) TMI 62 - BOMBAY High Court). We are in agreement with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that there cannot be any double taxation of the same income on the same persons in two different years, which is otherwise not permissible under the Act. no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It is affirmed, thus, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Held that:- On the reasoning and the factual matrix considered by the First Appellate Authority, we find no infirmity in the same. The ld. counsel for the assessee, during hearing, also agreed to the reasoning contained in the impugned order with respect to the reopening of assessment, thus, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed
|