TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 2009-10. In our view, this is not permissible under the law, in view of the explanation to section 2(47) wherein it clarifies that “transfer” includes and shall be deem to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally voluntarily or involuntarily, by way of an agreement or otherwise notwithstanding that such transfer of rights has been characterised as being effected or dependent upon or flowing from the transfer of a share or shares of a company. Hence, under the facts of the present case the transfer of capital asset took place in the financial year 2007-08, relevant to A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) was not justified in holding that the assessing officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 50C to compute Long Term capital Gain at ₹ 61,53,470/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the amendment to section 50C from 01.10.2009 applied retrospectively to the transaction that took place in the assmt. Year 2008-09. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT() was not justified in directing the assessing officer to assess the Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 61,53,470/- in the assemt. Year 2008-09 in place of ₹ 22,50,190/-, which was already assessed u/s 143(3) and in this way to increase the capital gain by ₹ 39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... session of land was given to the assessee and entire sale consideration was also paid on that date itself. Under these facts, in terms of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, the transfer stood completed on 31.05.2007, therefore, the transaction is to be related back to assessment year 2008-09 as against the assessment year 2009-10 which is reopened by the Assessing Officer. He therefore submitted that under these facts the reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 is vitiated on the contrary. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the transaction was completed in the year under appeal. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property. [Explanation 1]- for the purposes of sub-clauses (v) and (vi) immovable property shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of section 269UA.] Explanation 2- for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that transfer included and shall be deem to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally voluntarily or involuntarily, by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed at ₹ 22,50,190/-. Against this finding of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the Revenue has accepted that income which escaped assessment was pertaining to the A.Y. 2008-09. However, as per the notice for reopening the assessment year for opening is taken as assessment year 2009-10. In our view, this is not permissible under the law, in view of the explanation to section 2(47) wherein it clarifies that transfer includes and shall be deem to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally voluntarily or involuntarily, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
