Prem Narain vs Mahabir Jain on 7 May, 2018
It may, however, be observed that the observations in this case appear to be contrary to the law laid down in Alapati Venkataramiah v. Commr. of Income-tax, AIR 1966 SC 115 (Supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.65 seconds)Parvinchand N. Sehgal (Huf), Mumbai vs Ito 24(3)(2), Mumbai on 17 January, 2018
"7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the
relevant materials on record. Immoveable property is not conveyed
by delivery of possession, but by a duly registered deed. Once the
executed ITA No. 2304/MUM/2016 documents are registered, the
transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and
not on the registration of documents. We refer here to the decision
in Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185(SC) and CIT
vs. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd (1997) 226 ITR 625(SC).
Sh. Amar Singh, Jagadhari vs Ito, Yamunanagar on 26 February, 2018
The Supreme Court in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185 held (per head
note) :
Sh. Jai Ram, Jagadhari vs Ito, Yamunanagar on 26 February, 2018
The Supreme Court in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185 held (per head
note) :
Kamal Kishore Singhi, Mumbai vs Acit 26(1), Mumbai on 28 September, 2018
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant
materials on record. In the instant case not only the agreement for sale
was executed on 26.02.2007, but the agreement for sale was registered
on 07.03.2007, after paying the proper stamp duty and registration fees.
We are of the considered view that immovable property is not conveyed
by delivery of possession, but by a duly registered deed. Further, it is the
date of execution of registered documents, not the date of delivery of
possession or the date of registration of document which is relevant.
Once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place
on the date of execution of documents and not in the date of registration
of the document. It has been held so in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT
(1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR
625 (SC) and CIT v. Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR
724 (Raj).
M/S Chandigarh Bottling Co., ... vs Acit, Chandigarh on 29 August, 2018
While arriving at the conclusion, their Lordships,
it was submitted, have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Alapati Ventakaramia Vs CIT reported in 57 ITR 185 (SC). It was
his submission that heavy reliance is being placed upon the said
decision on behalf of the assessee also in the present proceedings.
Tina Kapoor, Mumbai vs Ito 26(2)(1), Mumbai on 9 February, 2018
Ms. Tina Kapoor 5
ITA No. 5663/Mum/2016
We begin with the 1st issue. We are of the considered view that
immovable property is not conveyed by delivery of possession, but by a
duly registered deed. Further, it is the date of execution of registered
document, not the date of delivery of possession or the date of
registration of document which is relevant. Once the executed
documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of
execution of documents and not on the date of registration of
documents. It has been held so in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965)
57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)
and CIT v. Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (Raj).
1