TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 8-7-1987/23-7-1987 for a consideration of Rs. 6,00,000. The assessee showed net sale consideration at Rs. 5,41,546 claiming Rs. 58,454 on account of expenses. The declared long term capital gains of Rs. 10,075 as the net sale consideration was stated to have been invested in the purchase of a residential plot at Jaipur and constructing a residential house at Kota. His case was that it was a case of long term capital gain and he was entitled to the benefit of section 54F of the Act. The ITO, however, held that since the sale-deed was registered on 25-6-1987 and transfer of the property stood completed on that date, it was a case of short term capital gain. He, therefore, worked out the difference at Rs. 5,41,546 and taxed the same as shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. 8. In view of the clear mandate contained in section 47 of the said Act, the Conveyance Deed, registered in the instant case on 25-6-1987 shall operate from 18-7-1979 on which date the allotment letter in respect to the plot in question was issued by the UIT, Kota, to the assessee. It may be observed that but for the bar of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1877, the transfer of title in the instant case would have been operative w.e.f. 18-7-1976. Now by virtue of section 47 of the said Act it would have that effect. Thus a joint reading of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied upon by the learned D/R lay down the proposition that the title in an immovable property exceeding Rs. 100 in value would pass from one person to another only through a registered document. There can be and is no dispute on this proposition. These cases, however, do not dispute the effect of section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, 1877, as has been discussed above. That apart they were decided before insertion of clause (v) in the definition of the term ' transfer ' in section 2(47). Thus the cases relied upon by the learned D/R do not afford any help to Revenue. 10. The ITO has referred to a case of Abdullah v. Bhichuk [1934] 147 IC 767, purportedly laying down the proposition that the provisions of section 47 would come into op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
