Skip to main content

Capital Gains Tax will not apply to a unregistered joint development agreement

In CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini, under an unregistered JDA between a co-operative housing society of which the Taxpayer was a member and developers, certain plot of lands were put up for development against consideration in money as also by way of allotment of flats, free of cost to members. After the payment of two instalments, developer defaulted in payment of the balance instalments, which resulted in the termination of JDA. The Tax Authority assessed the Taxpayer to capital gains tax in the year in which JDA was executed with reference to the entire amount, including the amount receivable by the member.

Under Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA) definition of “transfer” includes a  transaction that allows  the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘TOPA’).

SC noted that the provisions of TOPA will apply to a contract that is registered. An unregistered agreement has no legal effect and is not enforceable in law. Basis this, SC held that since JDA was not registered, the contract was not covered by provisions of TOPA and, consequently, there was no transfer for tax purposes within the extended definition of “transfer”.

Further, SC held that no capital gains was chargeable to tax also for the reason that no income accrued or arose to the Taxpayer as the  transaction of JDA did not materialize. SC also observed that mere presence of right to receive income unaccompanied by corresponding debt in favour of the Taxpayer results in hypothetical income and not real income.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more