| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 507 2010 SLD 507 (2010) 325 ITR 417 |
Kerala High Court
IT APPEAL NOS 145 AND 183 OF 2002, NOVEMBER 5, 2009
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IT APPEAL NOS 145 AND 183 OF 2002, NOVEMBER 5, 2009
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
C. Ravi
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Law:
Section:
Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gain - Transfer - Assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 Where case of assessee was that even though there was an agreement for sale, but sale had not in fact taken place and after cancelling agreement, sale was later made to brother of original transferee, but finding of Tribunal was that pursuant to agreement for sale, possession itself was given and transferee was carrying on business for later years, in view of this finding of Tribunal that purchaser was given possession, assessee was not entitled to canvass for position that section 2(47)(v ) was not applicable [In favour of revenue] Where the case of the assessee was that even though there was an agreement for sale, but sale had not in fact taken place and after cancelling the agreement, sale was later made to the brother of the original transferee, but the finding of the Tribunal was that pursuant to agreement for sale, possession itself was given and the transferee was carrying on business for later years: Held that, it is a common practice that under a sale agreement the purchaser can nominate another person in whose favour the sale deed is executed. The Tribunal had found that the transaction, namely, the agreement for sale itself was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) which reads that even a transaction under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is a transfer within the meaning of the said provision. In view of this finding of the Tribunal that the purchaser was given possession, the assessee was not entitled to canvass for the position that section 2(47)( v) was not applicable. P. Balachandran, Smt. Preetha S. Nair and P. Balakrishnan for the Appellant. P.K.R. Menon and Jose Joseph for the Respondent. JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. -The connected cases arise from the block assessment completed in the case of two assessees under section 158BD read with section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the years 1986-87 to 1996-97. We have heard Sri P. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the appellants and standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The common question pertains to assessment of short-termβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492