Dismissing the appeal of the assesse the Court held that ; the agreement dated April 30, 2001 referred to some oral agreement and powers of attorney executed between the assessees and the developer, but the fact remained that the agreement dated April 30, 2001 recorded that the assessees were the owners and in possession of the property. The power of attorney of the year 1993-94 did not disclose that possession was given to the developer in pursuance of the power of attorney. Moreover, the assessees in their reply to the notice stated that the assessees had not given possession to the developer but had given only access to enable him to do certain jobs on their behalf. It had also been stated in the reply that the assessees continued to be full owner of the property and there was no transfer. Therefore, the transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) had taken place only in the assessment year 2002-03, since, by agreement dated April 30, 2001, actual possession was given to the developer and it was not given on the basis of the powers of attorney and oral agreements entered into between the assessees and the developer in the year 1993-94.( AY. 2002 -03)
Dr. Joao Souza Proenca. v. ITO (2018) 401 ITR 105/ 253 Taxman 275 / 301 CTR 653/164 DTR 80 (Bom) (HC) Sara Proenca ( Mrs) v. ITO (2018) 401 ITR 105/ 253 Taxman 275/ 301 CTR 653 /164 DTR 80 (Bom) (HC)
S. 45: Capital gains — Transfer — Power of attorney was executed in the year 1993 -94 but actual possession was given in the year AY. 2003 -04, capital gain was held to be taxable in the year of handing over of possession . [ S. 27(v), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.53A ]