COVID-19: We're Serious About Safe Travel     READ MORE >

Journal > Agreement Of Sale Is Executed

Agreement Of Sale Is Executed

September 10th, 2021

Conclusion: assessee was entitled to demand a long-term capital gain from the sale of the land as a transfer under Article 2(47), which, on the date of the agreement of 11.04.2007, was to be taken into account at the place of execution of the deed of sale of 13.04.2010; since the purchase agreement of 11.04.2007, the transformation of land use by the JDA on 03.02.2010 and 05.02.2010 and the deed of sale of execution of 13.04.2010 are linked and the chain of events that can be transferred was for the transfer transaction. 21. In view of the definition of the term `transfer` within the meaning of Article 2(47) of the Law, it is clear that where a right lapses in relation to a capital asset and that right is transferred to someone, that would amount to a transfer of capital. In the light of the wooded definition, we examine the facts of the case in question, which took place on 27 December 2002, an agreement had been reached for the sale of a capital asset for the transfer of the house/initial asset in question and a sum of Article 15 Lakhs had been perceived as serious money. It is also indisputable that the deed of sale could not be enforced because the dispute between Shri Ranjeet Lal, on the one hand, and the plaintiffs, on the other, given that Shri Ranjeet Lal had challenged the validity of the will according to which the property had been transferred to the applicants. Following an order in the complaint filed by Shr i Ranjeet Lal, the plaintiffs were prevented from managing the building in question and a law-abiding citizen cannot be expected to violate court directions by pronouncing a deed of sale in favour of a third party while preventing him from doing so. In those circumstances, they were not entitled to execute the deed of sale for a legitimate reason which was not under the applicant`s control and the deed of sale had not been registered until 24 September 2004, following the dismissal of the appeal lodged by Shri Ranjeet Lal, who challenged the validity of the will. In the light of the reforested facts and the definition of the concept of `transfer`, it can be concluded that a right relating to the assets in question was transferred to the Vendée and therefore a right which the applicants had in respect of the capital in question. the contract of sale was interrupted because after the conclusion of the contract of sale, the plaintiffs were not free to sell the property to another person in accordance with the law. A right in personam had been created in favour of the Vendee, for whose benefit the contract of sale had been concluded and who had also paid Rs.15 Lakhs as serious money. There is no doubt that such a contractual right can be issued or neutralized by the parties by subsequent contracts or practices that do not lead to any transfer of ownership of the proposed Vendée, but this is not the case. .

. .