TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not make any difference. We are therefore of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was a transfer of capital asset and therefore capital gain on such transfer was rightly brought to tax by the revenue authorities. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of CIT(Appeals). - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 173/Bang/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2015 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan And Shri Abraham P. George JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthi, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR) ORDER Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 4.11.2013 of the CIT(Appeals)-I, Bangalore relating to assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g her 1/4th share of right, title and interest over the property, received a sum of ₹ 25 lakhs. 4. In the return of income filed for A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee did not declare any capital gain on relinquishment of her 1/4th share of right, title and interest over the aforesaid property. 5. The AO held that relinquishment of assessee's right over the property gave rise to long term capital gains and accordingly the sum of ₹ 25 lakhs was brought to tax as long term capital gains. 6. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that u/s. 47(1) of the Act, any distribution of capital assets on the total or partial distribution of HUF cannot be regarded as transfer. The assessee further submitted that relinquishment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the CIT(A), the aforesaid decision was not applicable to the case of assessee because there was no family settlement and on the other hand, there was only relinquishment of rights of co-sharers in favour of one of the co-sharer. He further drew support for the above conclusions from the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lalit Ratnam v. ITO (2013) 153 TTJ Chd. Trib. 59. In the said case, the assessee and her brother got by way of gift 40% and 60% share of property from their father. The assessee released her 40% share in favour of her brother. The transaction was considered as not giving rise to capital gains by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the case of release/relinquishment of right would be covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her of assessee died intestate leaving behind four sons and six daughters including assessee. After expiry of B , assessee along with other sisters filed a suit for partition of self acquired property of their father. The suit was ultimately compromised between the parties duly recognized by Court. In terms of memorandum of compromise daughters agreed to receive their 1/10th share each in property coming to ₹ 87.50 lakh from their brothers. The assessee s brothers subsequently entered into a joint development agreement of property in question. In terms of said agreement, the developer directly paid amount of ₹ 87.50 lakh each to daughters of B including assessee therein. The daughters of B thereupon executed a release deed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty to the property and not for any other purpose. The Tribunal ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no transfer within the meaning of section 2(45) of the Act and therefore capital gain was not exigible. 12. In the present case, however, the assessee transferred her share of right title and interest over the property in favour of other co-owners of the property. This was clearly a transfer. If the assessee had sold her share of property to third party, it would have certainly been exigible to capital gains tax. The fact that the transferee is another co-sharer of the property will not make any difference. We are therefore of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was a transfer of capital as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
