3. A warranty transaction must be independent or divisible from the transaction which, in law, requires registration. 2. However, these unregistered documents may be used as evidence of the secondary purpose provided for by the provision of Section 49 of the Registration Act. 4. We heard competing complaints 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. He therefore argued that the execution of the sale agreement had terminated a right in favour of the purchaser of the property and a specific right concerning the former residence which the auditor had benefited from and that, therefore, the agreement of 16.09.2011 should have been considered the date of the transfer and not as the registration date of 27.12.2011 of the AO/Ld.CIT (A). For this proposal, the Ld. AR cited the supreme court decision of Sanjiv Lal in Civil Appeal No. 5899-5900 of 2014 (SC), which is placed from pages 1 to 16 of the paper book (PB). In K.B.Saha – Sons Pvt. Ltd/Development Consultant Ltd., the Supreme Court considered the true meaning and purpose of the “collateral purpose of fact/collateral” in reference to the case law.
The Supreme Court questioned whether the Memorandum of Understanding in which the appeal was leased was admissible as evidence, since it was not registered. The other issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether section 9 of the lease, which constituted a significant term of the lease, could be used as evidence of a guarantee that should not be affected by a registered instrument. … The application, on the grounds that the declassification act intended to be submitted by the petitioner, is an unregistered document and this document must be registered in accordance with the registration law…. Certainly, the publication document requested by the petitioner is an unreged document that cannot be accepted and marked in the evidence. Therefore, I do not find any fragility or… “11. The main provision of Section 49 provides that any document that must be registered if it is not registered will not affect any property contained in it and that this document will not be considered evidence of a transaction relating to that property.