Chartered Accountant
344 Points
Joined January 2010
@ Vaneet Bansal
Dear Friend, your opinion is really appreciated. But if a person is interpreting a law, he should also consider the judicial pronouncements if the matter under consideration is not clear by the literal interpretation of the Act.
Now there is two questions under consideration.
1. Whether the Right to own the Property is a Capital Asset?
Bombay High Court has explained definition of capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the I T Act in the case of CIT vs Tata Teleservice Ltd 122 ITR 594 and has held as follows :-
What is a capital asset is defined in section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under that provision, a capital asset means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession. The other sub-clauses which deal with what property is not included in the definition of capital asset are not relevant. Under section 2(47), a transfer in relation to a capital asset is defined as including the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or the astonishment of any right therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law. The word “property”, used in section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, is a word of the widest amplitude and the definition has re-emphasised this by use of the words “of any kind” Thus, any right which can be called property will be included in the definition of “capital asset”. A contract for sale of land is capable of specific performance. It is also assignable. (See Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar v. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad 358). Therefore, in our view, a right to obtain conveyance of immovable property, was clearly “property” as contemplated by section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Other case law on the same issue favoring the above views of Bombay High Court are as follows:-
-
CIT v. Sterling Investment Corpn. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 441 (Bom.).
-
ITO v. Smt. Kashmiraben M. Parikh [1993] 66 Taxman 31 (Ahd.) (Mag.).
-
Tribunal order in ITA No. 3923 (Mum.) of 2002 for assessment year 1995-96 in the case of Mrs. Manju Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT, Mumbai ‘C’ Bench order dated 16-9-2004.
-
Jitendra Mohan v. ITO [2007] 11 SOT 594 (Delhi).
-
CIT vs Jindas Parchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR 552 (Guj).
In this case as allotment right has been issued in January 2010 gives the right to obtain conveyance on the said flat so it become an assets under section 2 (14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether Gain on sale of Flat will be short Term or Long Term?
An asset which is held for 36 months is a long term asset.
Whether it is held for 36 months?
Once the right to purchase ( i.e obtain conveyance ) proved to be an asset, it is to be seen when was this right vested in the purchase.
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M. Syamala Rao v. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 140 held that registration of a document related back to the day on which the agreement of sale was executed, hence, when the builder executed the agreement of sale on 7-8-1993, the assessee was to be deemed to be owner of property from that date and, accordingly, the capital gain was to be worked out.
In my opinion, the date of allotment is the date when the right of conveyance get vested. So, if there is difference of 36 months in this date and date of sale , then it can be considered that the said asset was a long term asset and gain on sale of such asset was “Long Term Capital Gains “.
In our case, the allotment date was January 2010 and as such on the date of sale, this right was held for more than 36 months so gain on sale of Flat will be Long term Only.
Hope the above will clarify my stand.