… implementation of an unregured sales agreement of November 11, 2003. It is also filed by the scholar council for the petitioner that, although the petitioner is the owner of the property, in question, by… for a defined benefit on the basis of an unregured sales agreement. This unregured sales agreement was dated November 11, 2003. ii) It seems that… Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that they want to present their additional evidence because they have never been considered parties in court and registered deeds of sale, under… Tribunal below erred in failing to allow the agreement to be allowed for sale as evidence.5 I heard from qualified lawyers for the petitioner and gave the file on the record.6 It`s… the petitioner filed a concrete benefit complaint for the sale agreement of May 12, 1993. According to the petitioners-plaintiffs, the accused executed the agreement for the sale of 1 Bigha…. 3. On May 12, 1993, the petitioner filed a motion under section 65 of the Evidence Act to present a photocopy of the agreement for sale as secondary evidence.
The interviewee… The section 49 regime provides for a derogation from the above rule, providing that an unregistered document, which relates to the property and which must otherwise be registered either by the registration law or by the TPA, can be obtained as proof of a contract in an appeal for a specified benefit or as evidence of an incidental transaction. The Supreme Court in KB Saha-Sons (P) Ltd/Development Consultant Ltd [(2008) 8 CSC 564] found that a mandatory document, if not registered, can only be considered in a court action for a given benefit as evidence of a contract performed between two parties and that this unregord document cannot be considered as proof of the content of the contract. Therefore, if a document is inadmissible as proof of non-registration, none of its provisions can be admitted as evidence. 4. We heard competing statements and examined the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the business appointments indicated there are not in dispute and are therefore not repeated for reasons of brevity. The expert`s application for an exemption from his capital gain, pursuant to section 54, paragraph 1, of the Act, was rejected by AO on the grounds that the notator had not purchased the dwelling within one year of the date of the sale of the former asset. In this case, the old house was transferred by the expert on 27.12.2011, when she had purchased a new apartment on 04.10.2010. Thus, the new asset was acquired more than a year before the date of the transaction for the old building.
For this reason, the AO did not grant benefits and 54 of the law. On appeal, Ld. CIT (A) upheld the AO`s decision. Before us, the Ld. AR argued that, under the provision in Section 2 (47) of the Act, which defines the term “transaction” which has been defined as inclusive, and according to that definition, if an asset right is in progress, such an extinction would involve the transfer of assets.