Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C. Aryama Sundaram, C/o. R. Balasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-VI, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment years and substantial questions of law. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 37) |
| 2. arguments on the applicability of section 54. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. tribunal's findings on the re-assessment orders. (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. tribunal's discretion and handling of additional claims. (Para 36 , 40 , 48) |
| 5. final disposal of appeals. (Para 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
The Tax case (Appeals) relate to assessment years (AY) 1999-2000 and 2001-02. The assessee is the appellant. The substantial questions of law that have been admitted on 19.01.2010 are common to both appeals and read as follows:
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that such exemption was not available to the assessee, by virtue of the Joint Development Agreement entered into by the assessee?
2. Mr.Arvind P.Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the assessee, assails the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’/’Tribunal’), which is a common order for both years making the following submissions.
4. The agreement provided for sale of 2.5% undivided share of the property to certain third part
The court held that the date of transfer for capital gains tax purposes is determined by the actual transaction date, enabling exemption claims under Section 54 if re-investment criteria are met.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
