Mere Agreement To Sell Does Not Create Any Right

Although the Supreme Court found such transactions to be illegal and could not be recognized as valid by law, it also attempted to distinguish these illegal transactions from actual transactions made in good faith by the parties. In addition, referring to Sections 53A and 54 of the Property Transfer Act and its decisions in Narandas Karsondas/SA Kamtam (2) and Rambhau Namdeo Gajre/Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (3), the Supreme Court held that the transfer of land by sale could only be done by a deed of transport. In the absence of a transport obligation (which must be duly stamped and legally registered), no right, property or interest in real estate can be transferred. The Tribunal also considered the importance of recording documents recording sales or transfer transactions and the need for all states to take steps to reduce wrongdoing and thereby reduce the dissemination of uncovered assets (or dirty money) into society. Powers It has also been indicated that a power of attorney cannot be construed as a transfer instrument with respect to a right, title or interest in a property. On the contrary, the power of attorney is the creation of an agency, the scholar authorizing the fellow to perform the acts mentioned in it on behalf of the donor and which, if carried out, will be binding on the beneficiary, as if it were performed by the beneficiary. However, it was pointed out that a lawyer may exercise promotional power in the exercise of the executed power and transfer the title on behalf of the funder. A sale agreement is an agreement in which the seller promises to transfer the future ownership of the property to certain conditions. Under the Indian Registration Act of 1908, any interest transfer agreement must be registered on property worth more than 100 rupees. Therefore, if you purchased a property for sale as part of an agreement without a good state of sale, you will not receive any right or interest in the property that would be transferred under the sale contract.

CIT (A) did not appreciate the evaluation argument and confirmed AO`s findings that the transfer of the property at the time of the implementation of the agreement took place at AY 2011-12. Capital gains were assessed in the year under review, namely AY 2011-12. By decision of the Ld. CIT (A), the judge appealed to ITAT.