Anil Bishnoi[2017] 86 taxmann.com 217 (Chandigarh – Trib.) SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
If someone has sold a property, consequently the other person has purchased the said property. If the transfer of property is complete as per the definition of transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act, the assessee is made labile to pay tax on the capital gains earned by him, on the same analogy, the transfer is also complete in favour of the purchaser also. The provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner to say that transfer vis-a-vis selling is complete but vis-a-vis purchase is not complete in respect of same transaction. In view of this, the word ‘Purchase’ cannot be interpreted and detached from the definition of word ‘transfer’ as given u/s 2(47) of the Act. When the transfer takes effect as per the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act, if a liability to pay tax arise in the case of the seller, the consequent right to get deduction on the purchase of property accrues in favour of the purchaser, if he otherwise is so eligible to claim it as per the relevant provisions of the Act.
For the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act, the registration of sale deed is not necessary. It is enough if the assessee has paid the consideration, acquired the possession with full rights and has fulfilled other requirements of the provisions of the Act:-
| 1. | Sh. Sanjeev Lal etc. v. CIT 269 CTR 001(SC) 2014 | |
| 2. | CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 12 CTR 0423 (SC) | |
| 3. | CIT v. K. Jelani Basha [2002] 256 ITR 0282 (Madras) | |
| 4. | CIT v. Ram Gopal [2015] 372 ITR 498 (Delhi) | |
| 5. | Balraj v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 22 (Delhi) | |
| 6. | CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727 (Delhi) | |
| 7. | CIT v. Dr Laxmichand Narpal Nagda, [1995] 211 ITR 804 (Bom.) | |
| 8. | CIT v Mrs. Shahzada Begum, [1988]73 CTR 0229 (A.P.) | |
| 9. | S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. Department of Income Tax, ITA No. 27 (Asr.)/2015 |