Case Law Details
K. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
The development agreement implied that assessee did permit the developer to enter into the premises and to do all the necessary things for construction of apartments. Some of the agreement holders also sold the flats in semi-finished condition or in fully developed condition, whereas few like assessee retained the flats as such. Therefore, assessee did hand over the possession of the land and provisions of section 2(47) of Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding transfer certainly get attracted because there was part performance of the contract in the nature referred to in section 53 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and clause (v) of section 2(47) was clearly attracted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
These are two appeals by two assessees against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad, for the AY. 2009-10. Since common issues are involved in both of these appeals, these are heard together and decided by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the facts in ITA No. 1561/Hyd/2016 in the case of Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi are adjudicated here under:
2. Briefly stated, assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary. Assessee filed her return of income admitting income from salary at Rs. 2,01,270/- for the AY. 2009-10 on 08-06-2009. She entered into an agreement with M/s. Diamond Infra. She was the owner of 270 Sq.Yds. of land situated at Sy.No. 145 (part), Plot No.9, Hydernagar Village, Balanagar, Kukatpally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District having acquired the same from the owners in the year 2000. There are 17 other persons who acquired plots in the said survey number from the same vendors. All the plot owners including assessee entered into a Development Agreement on 12-05-2008. According to the Development Agreement, each land owner would receive constructed area of 3365.29 Sq. ft. Assessee is of the view that –
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
IMPROMPTU
“…5.2. With reference to new provisions introduced in Section 45(5A), it was the submission that the provision is applicable w.e.f. 01-04-2018. Therefore, the same cannot be made applicable for the impugned assessment year as it was not clarificatory provision but a substantive provision introduced for the first time.”
Contrary to the impression given OR likely to be gathered, this is matter in which, for want of any clarity, right from the day of the enactment – of sec 45 (5A) – the ball of controversy has been kicked, and started rolling .
For MORE look up the host of material giving coverage, available in public domain, on a diligent search, if so interested/ inquisitive to KNOW !