2 IMP Case Laws

CIT vs. Dr. Arvind S. Phake (Bombay High Court)

S. 2(47)(v): Immovable property can be regarded to have been transferred on the date of execution of the Development Agreement and irrevocable General Power of Attorney only if the terms indicate that complete control is given to the developer. If the entire consideration is not received by the assessee and physical possession of the property is not parted with, there is no transfer u/s 2(47)(v)
What binds this Court is that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom). The Division Bench held that the date of contract is relevant provided the terms of the contract indicate passing off or transferring of complete control over the property in favour of the developer. The Division Bench laid down the test for determining the date which should be taken into account for determining the relevant accounting year in which the liability accrues. Admittedly, on the date of execution of the development agreement, the entire consideration was not received by the respondent assessee. The physical possession of the property subject matter of development agreement was parted with by the respondent assessee on 1st March, 2008. It was held that on that day, complete control over the property was passed on to the developer

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority vs. DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)

Coercive Tax Recovery: The AO wanted to preempt the Tribunal from dealing with the Stay application. The Act and conduct of the Revenue officials is against judicial conscience. Canons of law, justice and ethics have been broken down by the officials of the Department. An effort has been made to render the provisions of the law inoperative, debarring the assessee from availing any remedy from the higher forum

The act ion of the coercive recovery on the par t of the Assessing officer was against the elementary principal of rule of law. That the state is expected to act fairly. The undue haste on the part of the Assessing officer in recovering the amount was not only contrary to the binding decision of the Court but also shocking to the judicial conscience. The entire action was directed at rendering the Tribunal and the assessee helpless so that no relief can be granted in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal could not be silent spectator of the arbitrary and illegal act ion on the part of the Assessing officer so as to frustrate the legal process provided under the Act. The grant of refund of the amount that has been coercively recovered by the department was in the exercise of the tribunal’s inherent powers to ensure that the assessee is not left high and dry only on account of illegal and highhanded actions on the part of revenue and the assessing officer