TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odied in section 2(47)(v) of the Act and all the essential ingredients of Section 53A of 1882 Act were required to be fulfilled. In view of cancellation of JDA no further amount has been received and no action thereon has been taken. It was urged that as and when any amount is received, capital gains tax shall be discharged thereon in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid stand, while disposing of the appeals, we observe that the assessee appellants shall remain bound by their said stand. The issue of exigibility to capital gains tax having been decided in favour of the assessee, the question of exemption under Section 54F of the Act would not survive any longer and has been rendered academic. The Tribunal and the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition was pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty when the assessee had not fully disclosed the accrued capital gain and thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income especially in view of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and another? 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is one of the members of the Punjabi Cooperative House Building Society Limited consisting of 95 members present and Ex MLAs of Punjab Legislative Assembly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 01.08.2011, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) upheld the decision taken by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 29.07.2013, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before this Court. This Court in a common judgment dated 22.07.2015 in ITA No. 200 of 2013 C.S. Atwal Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another decided the case in favour of the assessee. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of ₹ 35,87,962/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide order dated 05.02.2014, Annexure A.5, for concealment of income and furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee? After considering the relevant statutory provisions and the case law, the following conclusions were drawn:- (1) Perusal of the JDA dated 25.02.2007 read with sale deeds dated 2.03.2007 and 25.04.2007 in respect of 3.08 acres and 4.62 acres respectively would reveal that the parties had agreed for pro-rata transfer of land. (2) No possession had been given by the transferor to the transferee of the entire land in part performance of JDA dated 25.02.2007 so as to fall within the domain of Section 53A of 1882 Act. (3) The possession delivered, if at all, was as a licencee for the development of the property and not in the capacity of a transferee. (4) Further Section 53A of 1882 Act, by incorporation, stoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
