Skip to main content

Mere License to Enter into Property for Preparing Plan & to Carry on Necessary Formalities for Construction would not amount to Transfer of Possession

In ITO v. Raj Kaiwar, a division bench of the ITAT Chennai held that mere license to enter into the property for preparing plan & to carry on necessary formalities for construction cannot be treated as transfer of Possession for the purpose of determining capital gain under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 

 In the year 2010, assessee entered into a joint development agreement as per which, he handed over the possession of the property to the developer. As per this agreement, the assessee is entitled for 70% of the constructed area and remaining 30% will go to the share of the developer. If the assessee gets anything more than 70%, the assessee shall pay for the excess constructed area at the rate of `9500/- per sq.ft. The project was not completed within three years due to delay in getting approval from the coastal zone regulation authority, who granted the same to the developer only in 2012. 

 Assessee earned Rs. `8,46,12,019/- towards capital gain and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act for the entire amount. The bench noted the fact that the physical possession of the property was handed over to the assessee only after the developer obtained the permission from the authority. It was, therefor held that, a mere license to enter into the property for preparing plan and to carry on necessary formalities for the purpose of constructing the building cannot be construed as handing over of physical possession of the property.

 Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/mere-license-enter-property-preparing-plan-carry-necessary-formalities-construction-not-amount-transfer-possession-itat/9237/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more