How many judgments cite Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (57 ITR 185), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1908, Section 144, Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 145, Section 147.

Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT

57 ITR 185Supreme Court of India1965#2179 most cited

What is Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT authority for?

A transfer of an immovable asset for capital gains purposes requires an effective conveyance through a registered sale deed to pass title. Prior to the amendment introducing Section 2(47)(v), transactions involving mere execution of documents or granting possession without registration were not considered complete transfers for tax.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT · Alapati Venkataramiah · section 2(47) · section 2(47)(v) · section 53A · transfer of immovable property · capital gains · registered conveyance deed · effective conveyance · possession without registration · part performance · Indian Registration Act

Sections most often in play

Section 1908 Section 144 Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145 Section 147 Section 17 of Indian Registration Act Section 17(1A) of Indian Registration Act

Issues it is cited on

section 45(2)section 2(47)(v)section 53a joint development agreement section 53 jda section 2(47)legal expenses right to receive project completion method percentage completion method full value of consideration

Judgments citing Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 296/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 295, 296 & 297/Bang/2020 Assessment years: 2006-07 – 2008-09 M/s S.P.R Developers Pvt. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, F-113, 2C&D, Central Central Circle-1(3), Chambers, 2nd Floor, 2nd Bengaluru. Main, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru-560 009. PAN: AAFCS 6429 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri L Bharath, C.A Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 07.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, A…

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 295/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 45Section 53A

…issive possession when the developer has a right to alienate the same to others by way of sale, mortgage, gift, loan or otherwise dispose of the same. Page 39 of 40 77. In our opinion, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC), to attract liability to tax u/s. 45, it is sufficient if in the accounting year profits have arisen out of transfer of capital asset. In other words, if the assessee had a right to receive the profit in the assessment year under consideration, the assessee is liable to pay capital gains tax on transfer of capital asset. Actual receipt of pro…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

…ny estoppel against assessee and claim should be allowed in accordance with the provisions of law and cited the following decisions:- CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd., 403 ITR 426 (SC) CIT v. K. Venkatesh Dutt, 319 ITR 331 (Kar) Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC) CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (I) Ltd., 29 ITR 661 (SC) CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 81 ITR 303 (Del) CIT v. Rewari Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., 263 ITR 598 (P&H) CIT v. S.E. Railway Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., 390 ITR 524 (Cal) CIT vs. M.R.P. Firm [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC); Sanchez Capital Services (P.) Ltd vs ITO 26 Taxmann.com 6…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR

Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, VP and Shri Chandra Poojari, AM ITA No.813/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. The Asst.Commissioner of Flacon House No.1, Income-tax, Circle 18(1) v. Main Guard Cross Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AABCP8096K. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR Date of Date of Hearing : 04.02.2021 Pronouncement : 02.03.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, AM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143Section 4

…at the time of divestment and accordingly the right of appropriation of the option money so received also accrued on the date of divestment. Under the law, in the case of transfer, the liability to tax accrued on the date of transfer of title in the assets. 57 ITR 185 (SC) Appavoo Pillai vs. CIT 36 ITR 215 (SC) Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 151 ITR 122 (Mad) CIT vs. M. Ramaswami 203 ITR 663-665 (Ker) Rajagiri Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. CIT Therefore, looking to the overall terms and conditions of the joint venture agreement, the purpose of payment of option money by CUIH to Dabur as well as the date of app…

Jytsna Sunderlal Shroff, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 216/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A. Mohan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…date of registration of document which is relevant. Once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents as held in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (Raj). In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), it is held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied with the twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneou…

Hemant Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4566/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Hemant Shah Acit-20(1), Mumbai 10, Oomed Sadan 58, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 Vs Pan : Aadps2405E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…s not exclusively ownership and does not breach the claim of exemption u/s 54F. In support of his submission, the Ld.AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme ITA No. 4566/Mum/2017-Hemant Shah (AY 2013-14) Court in Alipati Ventaramaih 57 ITR 185 (SC); Gujarat High Court in Ushaben Jayantilal Sodhan 93 taxmann.com 453 (Guj (HC), decision of Tribunal in Rasiklal Satra (98 ITD 335), Ashok Chouhan (176 ITD 717), Smt. Vasanti Rangarajan 23 taxmann.com 299 (Madras HC), Kapil Nagpal (63 taxmann.com 336 (Delhi HC). 12. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower…

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant- assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5784/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-D.R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…RP did not admit the additional claim of the assessee relying on the judgment in Goetze (India) Limited vs CIT 284 ITR 323. 34. In this respect the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial precedents for such claim: • Alapati Venkataramiah V/s. CIT (57 ITR 185) • Evans Fraser and Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) V/s. CIT (137 ITR 493) • Smifs securities [TS-639-SC-2012] • Birla Global Asset Finance Co. Ltd [TS-791-HC- 2012 (BOM)] • Worldwide Media Pvt Ltd [TS-56-ITAT-2014 (Mum)] • DCIT v. Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. [2014-TIOL-442- ITAT-DEL] confirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. • Dy. CIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd.…

Santosh Raju Shetty, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1757/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, CIT(DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…which is relevant. Once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. In this regard, we rely on the decision in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (Raj). In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the assessee had purchased a plot of land vide agreement of sale dated 23.11.2006 along with others for a total consideration of Rs.29,00,000/- which was registered on 23.11.20…

Shankala Realotrs P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3827/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shankala Realtors Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd. A/1, Swati Manor, Opp. Vs. 8(2)(1), Mumbai. Shivaji Mandir, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aaccs5344Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Shankala Realtors Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd. A/1, Swati Manor, Opp. Vs. 7(2)(3),Mumbai. Shivaji Mandir, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aaccs5344Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shankala Realtors Pvt. Addl. Cit-7(2), Mumbai. Ltd. A/1, Swati Manor, Opp. Vs. Shivaji Mandir, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aaccs5344Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Sathe, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Maurya Pratap, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…date of registration of document which is relevant. Once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents as held in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC). As per the ingredients of AS-7 and AS-9, ‘revenue’ be recognized even though legal title of the property is not transferred and possession is not given. Once seller transfers significant risks and rewards of ownership to buyer, seller thereafter acts like a contractor. Accordingly revenue recognition will have to be as in ‘Percentage Complet…

DCIT, Alappuzha vs. M/S Aceelerated Freeze Drying Co, Ltd, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

ITA 714/COCH/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jun 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 42Section 50BSection 50B(1)

…e property on 10/05/2001 and therefore, the holding period was less than 36 months for which the assessee is liable to short term capital gains. 3) The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Alappattu Venkitaraman vs. CIT (57 ITR 185), entries in the books are not relevant for the purpose of determining the date of transfer. The effective date of transfer is the date on which the transfer deed is registered. 4. Having held that the capital gains on the transfer of he said property should be assessed u/s. 50B, the CIT(A) ought to have see that according to proviso to section 5…

Aceelerated Freeze Drying Co.Ltd, Alappuzha vs. DCIT, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

ITA 1286/COCH/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jun 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 42Section 50BSection 50B(1)

Sujauddin Kasimsab Sayyed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5498/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sujauddian Kasimsab Income Tax Officer-2(2), 2Nd Sayyed A-5, 202, Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Vs. Vaishali Lok Nagri Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan- Chs Ltd. Midc Road, 421301. Ambernath (E)- 421501. Pan No. Axops1247C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh & Mr. D.G.Pansari, Drs Last Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ery of possession, but by a duly registered deed. Further, it is the date of execution of registered document, not the date of delivery of possession or the date of registration of document which is relevant. In the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), it is held that once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. 7.6 Section 56(2)(viii)(b)(ii) clearly stipulates that where any immoveable property is received for a conside…

Mahendra Kumar M.Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mahendra Kumar M. Acit-18(2) Erstwhile Jain 1, Lawyers Chambers, Vs. Acit-14(3), Mumbai. Fr. Floor, Picket Rd, Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aacpj5382N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mani Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR

Section 143(3)

…ery of possession, but by a duly registered deed. Further, it is the date of execution of registered document, not the date of delivery of possession or the date of registration of document which is relevant. In the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), it is held that once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. In view of above factual matrix and position of law, the 1st ground of appeal is dismissed. 3. The 2nd ground…

M/S. R.C. Narula & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1028/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 48

…in the property stands transferred in the hands of buyer and the date of actually receiving the entire consideration is not material. I am further fortified in my view by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185 (SC), wherein it was heia that the date of sale or transfer is the date when the sale or transfer takes place, and for the purpose of determining that date, entries in the account books are irrelevant. Accordingly, the transfer is completed by executing the agreement. 6(b) The assessee has further claimed that the transaction is not covered withi…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

ITA 254/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 53ASection 54F

…he party with whom the appellant entered into an agreement the general legal principle that the transfer as per the registered deed will relate back to date of agreement does not apply; 5.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah Vs CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 had held that capital Gain arose in the year in which the deed was registered. It is however to be noted that the decision was with reference to the chargeability under section 45 wit 'reference to transfer as defined e amendment under the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1984 with effect from 1.4.1985 and the Finance Bill 1987 with effect from 1988. S…

Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…on relating to immovable property accrued or arisen in the year in which the sale deed has been registered irrespective of allowing of the possession of the property at an earlier date. Such law was held in the following cases: Alapati Venkata Ramaya vs. CIT 57 ITR 185 (SC) CIT vs. Meatles Ltd. 84 ITR 37 (SC) CIT vs. Hindustan Cold Storage & Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. 103 ITR 455 (Del) Ghansham Dass Krishan Chander vs. CIT 121 ITR 121 (AP) Ld. Counsel of the assessee further stated that now after amendment made in the Registration Act by the Amendment Act, 2001 by way of insertion of Section 17(1A) of the Registra…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)