ZARIR RUSTOM JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6455/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 February 2026AY 2009-10Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the transaction of transfer of property took place in the year 2000 itself, as evidenced by the development agreement and the relinquishment of rights by the assessee and co-sharers. The consideration of Rs. 66,00,000/- was received in 2000. The subsequent sale deed in 2008 did not represent a new transaction for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's action. The AO reopened the assessment for AY 2009-10, based on information that the assessee had sold agricultural land. The assessee had entered into a development agreement in 2000, relinquishing rights and offering capital gains in AY 2000-01. The AO treated the transfer date as 2008 based on a sale deed.

What were the issues?

Whether the transfer of immovable property occurred in AY 2000-01 (development agreement) or 2008 (sale deed), and whether capital gains tax was correctly determined by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(47)(v),Section 53A,Section 147,Section 50C(1),Section 54EA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K (SMC

Before: AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.12.2025Pronounced: 04.02.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short] passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short)

2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO that the transfer of an immovable property takes place only on execution of conveyance deed and not before that, under the Act. Mr. Zarir Rustom Joshi

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(47)(v)

All 331 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47)(v) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →