Ramesh A. Radhakrishnan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
We find that the expression used is ‘held’ as against ‘acquired’ or ‘purchased’ as used in other Sections like section 54 / 54F which shows that legislatures were conscious while making use of this expression. The expressions like ‘owned’ / ‘acquired’ has not been used for the purpose of determining the nature of asset as short term capital asset or long term capital asset. Thus, the intention of the legislature was clear that for the purpose of determining the nature of capital gain, the period during which the asset was held by the assessee for all practical purposes on de-facto basis was to be considered and not the date of obtaining absolute legal ownership of the asset for determining the holding period. The term “held” has been interpreted by the Courts wherein unanimous view has been that the said term ‘held’ is different from the term ‘acquire’. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148, stated that the term ‘held’ is deliberately used as against term ‘owned’. Hence, a person can hold the asset as owner, lessee, tenant, etc. Therefore, the right to the property is held by a person from the date when he enters into an agreement for purchase and not when he acquires possession.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-46 [C IT(A)], Mum bai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-46/ACIT-35(2)/64/2015-16 dated 02/01/2017 by raising following grounds of appeal:-
