Assessee reported income from the sale of immovable property under S. 44AD and claimed it to be in the nature of commission income earned on behalf of his father, Shri Mansukhbahai Dobariya. AO disagreed, holding that the properties were registered in the names of assessee and another individual. Assessee pleaded that the property sale transactions were carried out on behalf of his father and the income should not be taxable in his hands. Held: The purchase and sale deeds identified the assessee as the absolute owner of properties. Though payments were routed through ‘ Shri Mansukhbahai Dobariya account, however, this did not alter the ownership established in the registered documents. No evidence was submitted to substantiate the claim that assessee acted merely as a name-lender for his father. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed.(AY.2009-10, 2011-12)
Piyush M. Dobariya v. ITO (2025) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1075 /127 ITR 246/234 TTJ 42 (Ahd)(Trib) Ajay Bharwad v.. ITO (2025) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1075 /127 ITR 246/234 TTJ 42 (Ahd)(Trib)
S. 45: Capital gains-Capital asset-Sale of immovable property-Name of lender-Agency Transaction-Ownership established in the registered documents-Addition is affirmed. [S.2(14), 44AD]
Leave a Reply