TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be AY 2008-09, then admittedly, the possession of said property is deemed to have been given in the said assessment year. Once the AO has accepted the plea that transfer took place in AY 2008-09 and assessed income under long term capital gains in the hands of Assessee, the ITAT correctly concluded that it cannot be said that the possession was not transferred in AY 2008-09. Once legal possession has been handed over by Assessee only in 2008-09 then it is presumed and accepted that the said capital asset was held by Assessee trust wholly for charitable purposes till the date of its sale. Decided against revenue. - K. R. SHRIRAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar. For the Respondent : None. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettled by filing 'Consent Terms' and an order was passed by the Hon ble High Court on 25th July 2006 taking the Consent Terms on record subject to appropriate directions/permissions to be granted by the Charity Commissioner. Under the Consent Terms, Assessee agreed to accepted a sum of Rs.6.28 Crores in full and final settlement and transferred the property in favour of the nominee of Buildforce, i.e., one M/s. Dilip Estate Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. ( Dilip Estate ). Post the order of the Hon ble High Court, permissions were sought from the Charity Commissioner, who vide an order dated 5th April 2007 extended the time to complete the transaction. The time to execute the conveyance deed was extended upto 31st May 2007. A sale deed wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anks in FDRs, then no capital gain arises to Assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer ( AO ) did not accept this stand of Assessee because, according to him, Assessee entered into an agreement with Buildforce in 1994 and the sale deed was executed in favour of its nominee, Dilip Estates only on 20th April 2007, i.e., after a period of almost 12 years, then in this intervening period of 12 years, where the possession of the property was with Buildforce as per the MOU, Assessee was not in possession. Therefore, it cannot be held that the property was being held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes. Therefore, Assessee has not fulfilled the requirement of Section 11(1A) of the Act. Hence, Assessee is not entitled to the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
