Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : A. R. Prasad Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 956 of 2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 28/08/2019
Related Assessment Year : 2009-10
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

A. R. Prasad Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

The issue under consideration is whether the capital gain will be chargeable in case of JDA even if Permissive possession was not handed over to builder during the concerned year?

ITAT states that, the possession is handed over to the builder only for limited purpose to enter upon the property for the purpose of implementation of JDA. In the present case, such permission to enter the scheduled property is granted subject to completion of certain conditions i.e. on approval of the plan and grant of licence for construction of the buildings from BBMP and/or from concerned authorities. As pe commencement certificate dated 24.08.2009 issued by BBMP, permission was granted by BBMP for commencement of building construction work on 24.08.2009. Hence, even as per this permission granted by the land owners in the present case to the builders to enter upon the property for the purpose of implementation of JDA, the builder cannot enter upon the property prior to 24.08.2009 and hence, in the present year up to 31.03.2009, the builder cannot enter upon the property. The tribunal in the above cited case held that the possession granted is in the nature of permissive possession and not possession in part performance of agreement for sale. In the present case, even this permissive possession is not given to the builder prior to 24.08.2009. Hence, ITAT hold that in the facts of the present case as discussed above, even permissive possession was not handed over to the builder in the present year and therefore, ITAT have held that there is no transfer in the present year and hence no capital gain will arise.

FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT

These two appeals are filed by two different but connected assesses being husband and wife and these are directed against two separate orders of learned CIT (A) – 6, Bangalore both dated 18.03.2016 for A. Y. 2009 – 10. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031