TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was parted with by the respondent-assessee on 1st March, 2008. It was held that on that day, complete control over the property was passed on to the developer. After having perused the various clauses in the agreement and the aforesaid factual aspects, the Tribunal has taken 1st March, 2008 as the date of transfer. This finding is fully consistent with the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003 (2) TMI 62 - BOMBAY High Court). Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal when it was held that the investment made in the sum of ₹ 50,00,000/by the respondent-assessee on 22nd August. 2008 was within the period specified under Section 54EC of the said Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in it is held that if the contract, read as a whole, indicates passing of or transferring of complete control over the property in favour of the developer, then the date of contract would be relevant to decide the year of chargeability? 2. In this Appeal, we are concerned with the Assessment Year 2008-09. A return was filed by the respondent-assessee declaring his income on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of immovable property, income from business and profession of medical practitioner and other sources. The dispute before the Appellate Tribunal was in respect of part disallowance of exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while computing the Long-Term Capital Gain on the sale of immo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that investment in the bonds of NHAI was within the period specified under Section 54EC of the Act and the investment of ₹ 50,00,000/made in the bonds of REC Ltd. was beyond the period provided in the said provision inasmuch as the investment made on 22nd August, 2008 was not within six months from the date of the transfer of assets. The finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order is that the physical possession of the property was given by the respondent-assessee to the developer on 1st March, 2008. The Appellate Tribunal observed that on the date of execution of the development agreement, full consideration was admittedly not paid, and therefore, the contention of the department that the transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent-assessee. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions. What binds this Court is that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). The Division Bench held that the date of contract is relevant provided the terms of the contract indicate passing off or transferring of complete control over the property in favour of the developer. The Division Bench laid down the test for determining the date which should be taken into account for determining the relevant accounting year in which the liability accrues. In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal has taken into consideration various clauses in the development agreement. Sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
