“It is true that the authorization to sell the land to Tarakkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. was granted on the condition that the land be used for residential purposes and that the application for permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Plandgesetz was sought for use for residential purposes after the sale. But it only shows that after the sale date, this country should no longer be agricultural land. The authorization granted by the city`s vice-picker under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act makes it clear that if the country does not cease to be farmland, the authorization would be considered void and that, therefore, the sale to tarakkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. would be unfructuous and that the land would be returned to the expert. In this case, the land would continue to be used for agricultural purposes, as the authorization to sell to a non-farmer would be considered void. This possibility did not materialize and, as noted above, the buyer received permission to farm non-farm in February 1969… The Assessee owned the gymnasium (the “property”), with two sales contracts with the buyer on 14.02.2011 (AY 2011-12). Under the above agreements, the two properties had been agreed to be sold in exchange for a consideration of 2,20.00.000 D. each. Only a symbolic amount of 20,00,000 UK.- was received by the auditor as an advance, and the consideration was agreed by buyers until 26.05.11 (AY 2012-13). Ownership of the property was not transferred to the buyer in AY 2011-12. With regard to Article 3, point (ii), of the agreement, it provided that the purchaser would present to the notator the consideration of Rs.2 crores on 26.05.11 or before 26.05.11, provided that the notator would invoke his title and all other rights and interests on that property as clear, marketable and free of any charge, within 30 days of the date of application of the agreement. Clause 13 of the contract was agreed so that the purchaser could only take possession of the property in exchange for payment of the balance.
The AO found that the premises had been transferred on 14.02.2011 (AY 2011-12), even on the basis of registered sales contracts, both of which were concluded on that date. The AO found that the sale agreement in question was not revocable. With respect to the property, it was decided that the subsequent sale of the property was a mere formality and that, therefore, the short-term capital gains made by the notator of the sale of the property should be taxed in the A.Y. 2011-12 and not if the actual possession had been granted to AY 2012-13. The person noted aggrieved by this decision lodged an appeal with the CIT (A). “3. Absolute property sale calendar will give us the execution to you at the time of execution of the registered sale from that property on the date we have given to the execution of you the execution will be decided. Admittedly, the Bombay Supreme Court ruled on 29 October 2018 that the income tax tribunal`s conclusion was correct and that the sale/sale of the property in question was not completed until 2011-12.