Case Law Details
CIT Vs Harbour View (Kerala High Court)
We find that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the possession was not handed over in pursuance of the agreement for sale as contemplated under section 53A of the TP Act. Once the sale agreement comes under the provisions of section 53A of the TP Act, handing over of possession takes place and the provisions under section 2(47) would squarely apply. That apart, the argument of the learned senior counsel for the assessee that contract was subsequently rescinded will not be of any help because the contract was rescinded only subsequent to the assessment year and what we are concerned for the purpose of the Act is the transactions which took place during the assessment year. The fact that the contract was subsequently terminated on mutual consent will not improve the case of the assessee to wriggle out of the purview of section 2(47) of the Act and the liability to pay tax on short-term capital gains under section 45 of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
The Revenue is in appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short) challenging the findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 509/Coch/2006 dated April 20, 2009 (Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Harbour View [2009] 84 Taxman 42 (Mag.)), for the assessment year 1999-2000. The following questions of law arise for consideration :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is exigible to Income-tax for short-term capital gains in the assessment year 1999-2000 ?
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
