9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 54/54F of the Act. 3. Shri J. Prabhakar, ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that this is second round of litigation before this Tribunal. In the first round of litigation, this Tribunal by an order dated 31.1.2012 remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer with the direction to reexamine the same. The Assessing Officer, after examining the matter, found that the property was transferred on 20.1.2006 when the development agreement was executed. According to the ld. Representative, the possession of the property was not handed over on 20.1.2016. The ld. Representative further submitted that the assessee alongwith her father and mother continued to live in the property till 12.4.2006, therefore, handing over the possessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... daughter. When the assessee settled one of the flat in favour of her son and daughter, it cannot be construed as sale of the plot. Therefore, according to the ld. Representative, the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. On the contrary, Shri A.V. Sreekanth, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the development agreement clearly shows that the physical possession of the property was handed over to the developer on the date of the development agreement. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly found that the property was transferred under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 20.1.2006. Therefore, the capital gain has to be assessed only during the year under consideration. Referring to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power of attorney nominating agents one for making applications for building approval and another for sale of the property. The assessee in fact nominated one Shri Mohul H. Doshi as her power of attorney agent to execute the sale deed in pursuance to the development agreement. Therefore, it is obvious that the property was handed over to the developer on 20.1.2006 when the development agreement was executed. A copy of the letter which is available at page 117 of the paper book shows that M/s Doshi Housing Ltd took physical possession of the property on 20.1.2006. When the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Doshi Housing Ltd allowing them to retain 40% of the undivided share in the property for a consideration of 60% of the super b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected on the ground that the assessee was having two flats and one of the flat was transferred within a period of three years. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that even though two flats were allotted, this has to be construed as one single unit therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The so called transfer of one of the flats is not by sale. The property was settled in favour of assessee's son and daughter. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that a settlement made by the assessee in favour of her son and daughter is only a family arrangement in the family and it cannot be construed as transfer of property. There may be various reasons for settling the property in favour of the assessee's s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
