C.S. Atwal v. CIT

378 ITR 244High Court2015#7891 most cited

What is C.S. Atwal v. CIT authority for?

For a transaction to be considered a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, all legal requirements of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act must be met, including the registration of an Agreement to Sell. If the agreement is not registered, it is not enforceable under general law and does not fall under Section 2(47)(v).

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

C.S. Atwal v. CIT · Section 2(47)(v) · Section 53A · Transfer of Property Act · Agreement to Sell · registration · enforceable · income tax act · capital gains · transfer

Issues it is cited on

section 269uasection 2(47)(v)section 53asection 53section 2(47)full value of considerationsection 269section 50cstamp duty valuesection 50long term capital gainsfair market value

Judgments citing C.S. Atwal v. CIT

Fashion Group International, Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle, Panipat

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

ITA 122/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv
Section 50C

…nce in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, property can be said to transferred through Agreement to Sell only if the Agreement to Sell is a registered agreement. Reliance is placed on the following judgments;- (I) Charanjit Singh Atwal Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 244 (P&H HC) “Once it was embodied in Section 2(47)(v) of the Act by incorporation, all the legal requirements of Section 53A of 1882 Act had to be complied with. In the absence of registration of such an agreement, the same was not enforceable under general law keeping in view the provisions of Sections 17(1 A) and 49 of the 1908 Act and at the sam…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4876/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

…rying development on plot of land is not handing over possession possession within the meaning of section 2(47) of the tion 2(47) of the Act, and hence, no transfer no transfer, relied on following decisions: relied on following decisions: 1. CS Atwal Vs CIT 378 ITR 244 ( P &H) CS Atwal Vs CIT 378 ITR 244 ( P &H) 2. Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) 3. Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs I…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4875/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

…rying development on plot of land is not handing over possession possession within the meaning of section 2(47) of the tion 2(47) of the Act, and hence, no transfer no transfer, relied on following decisions: relied on following decisions: 1. CS Atwal Vs CIT 378 ITR 244 ( P &H) CS Atwal Vs CIT 378 ITR 244 ( P &H) 2. Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) 3. Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs I…

Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 3773/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

…rying development on plot of land is not handing over possession possession within the meaning of section 2(47) of the tion 2(47) of the Act, and hence, no transfer no transfer, relied on following decisions: relied on following decisions: 1. CS Atwal Vs CIT 378 ITR 244 ( P &H) CS Atwal Vs CIT 378 ITR 244 ( P &H) 2. Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) 3. Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs I…

Darshan Hosiery Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6591/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri D.V. Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R
Section 234B

…ight has been taken place as is clear from the final lease deed executed on 10.05.2011 and therefore submitted that it can not be brought to tax in current year.The ld AR relied on a series of decisions in support of his arguments namely (i) C.S. Atwal Vs CIT 378 ITR 244 (P & H) (ii) Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt Ltd Vs State of Haryana and Others 340 ITE 1 (SC) and CIT Vs Tata Tele Services. 122 ITR 594 Bom. Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of CIT(A) may be reversed by directing the AO to delete the long capital gain of Rs. 3,09,87,506/- . 6. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the ord…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Smt. Lakshmamma, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1696/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) in the context of Joint Development Agreement, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has partially upheld the view expressed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C.S.Atwal (378 ITR 244). Hence the law pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) may have a bearing on the claim put forth by the assessees herein in their respective petitions filed u/s 154 of the Act. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered the Joint Development Agreement and also above said decision rendered by Hon’ble Sup…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Smt. Lakshmamma, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1695/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) in the context of Joint Development Agreement, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has partially upheld the view expressed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C.S.Atwal (378 ITR 244). Hence the law pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) may have a bearing on the claim put forth by the assessees herein in their respective petitions filed u/s 154 of the Act. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered the Joint Development Agreement and also above said decision rendered by Hon’ble Sup…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) in the context of Joint Development Agreement, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has partially upheld the view expressed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C.S.Atwal (378 ITR 244). Hence the law pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) may have a bearing on the claim put forth by the assessees herein in their respective petitions filed u/s 154 of the Act. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered the Joint Development Agreement and also above said decision rendered by Hon’ble Sup…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1693/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) in the context of Joint Development Agreement, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has partially upheld the view expressed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C.S.Atwal (378 ITR 244). Hence the law pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) may have a bearing on the claim put forth by the assessees herein in their respective petitions filed u/s 154 of the Act. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered the Joint Development Agreement and also above said decision rendered by Hon’ble Sup…

Ronak Marble Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO WD. 24(3)(4) (Erstwhile Known As Ward 20(2)(4)), Mumbai

ITA 3045/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanialFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar
Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50C

…pment of property and not for the sale of property and the assessee did not part with his interest in the property. 9 I.T.A. No.3318/Mum/2015 I.T.A. No.3045/Mum/2016 In defence of his argument he relied on the decision in the case of C.S. Atwal V/s CIT(2015) 378 ITR 244 (P&H). The ld. AR while taking us through the chronology of the events such as date of development dated 21.4.2008, intimation of disapproval dated 11.6.2009, date of plan approval 11.6.2009, permission from District Collector on 29.6.2009, date of Commencement Certificate from Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation 1.8.2009, prayed before the bench…

ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Ronak Marble Industries, Mumbai

ITA 3318/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanialFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar
Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50C

…pment of property and not for the sale of property and the assessee did not part with his interest in the property. 9 I.T.A. No.3318/Mum/2015 I.T.A. No.3045/Mum/2016 In defence of his argument he relied on the decision in the case of C.S. Atwal V/s CIT(2015) 378 ITR 244 (P&H). The ld. AR while taking us through the chronology of the events such as date of development dated 21.4.2008, intimation of disapproval dated 11.6.2009, date of plan approval 11.6.2009, permission from District Collector on 29.6.2009, date of Commencement Certificate from Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation 1.8.2009, prayed before the bench…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-30(1), Kolkata vs. Smt. Maya Sanyal, Kolkata

ITA 2854/KOL/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-30(1), -Versus- Smt. Maya Sanyal Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aatps 0946 G) (Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2007-08 A.C.I.T., Circle-17, -Versus- Smt. Indrani Sanyal Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aatps 0947 H) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri I.Banerjee, FCA
Section 143(3)

…ent agreement coupled with registered power of attorney executed on the same day by the assessee and her co-owner in favour of the developer. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C.S.Atwal vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 244 (P&H) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bertha T Almeida vs ITO reported in (2015) 53 taxmann.com 522 (Bom) dated 10.7.2014 in support of his arguments. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book filed by the assessee comprising of Collaboration / Developme…

A.C.I.T., Circle-17, Kolkata vs. Indrani Sanyal, Kolkata

ITA 2810/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-30(1), -Versus- Smt. Maya Sanyal Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aatps 0946 G) (Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2007-08 A.C.I.T., Circle-17, -Versus- Smt. Indrani Sanyal Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aatps 0947 H) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri I.Banerjee, FCA
Section 143(3)

…ent agreement coupled with registered power of attorney executed on the same day by the assessee and her co-owner in favour of the developer. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C.S.Atwal vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 244 (P&H) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bertha T Almeida vs ITO reported in (2015) 53 taxmann.com 522 (Bom) dated 10.7.2014 in support of his arguments. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book filed by the assessee comprising of Collaboration / Developme…

ACIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Jawaharlal L Agicha, Mumbai

ITA 1844/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 17(3) Shri Jawaharlal L. Agicha R.No.614, 6Th Floor, 99, Ray Road, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033 Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adjpa2926K Revenue By Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit-Dr) Respondent By Shri Hiro Rai (Ar)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(i)Section 2(47)(v)Section 4(1)

…be pressed into service to hold that the asset had been transferred for the purpose of computing taxable amount of capital gains. In this regard, he placed reliance on a recent judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of C.S. Atwal v. CIT 378 ITR 244 which is directly on this issue. Further reliance was placed on the judgment of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Devendra H. Dave Udgith v. ITO 49 ITR (Trib) 561 (Mumbai) wherein the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has been followed and identical view has been taken that in absence of registration of the…

C.S. Atwal v. CIT (378 ITR 244) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax