How many judgments cite Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT?

150 judgments on BharatTax cite Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT (260 ITR 491), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 148, Section 2(47)(v), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 45.

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

260 ITR 491High Court2003#662 most cited

What is Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT authority for?

For capital gains purposes, a 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) occurs and capital gains arise in the year when possession of the property is handed over in part performance of a contract, such as a joint development agreement. This was the settled position before the specific provisions of section 45(5A) were introduced.

150

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT · section 2(47)(v) · section 45 · section 53A Transfer of Property Act · capital gains · date of transfer · joint development agreement · JDA · possession in part performance · transfer of capital asset · section 45(5A)

Also reported as

180 CTR 107

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 148 Section 2(47)(v)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 45 Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53a section 53 section 2(47)joint development agreement jda transfer of capital asset date of transfer section 45 section 54 long term capital gain fair market value

Judgments citing Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

Bhavana Baban Vaity, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1391/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

…med his part of the contract by not giving possession of the three flats in question as agreed in the agreement entered into between the parties in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT 260 ITR 491”. This issue was specifically raised by the assessee by filing the comprehensive submissions but not decided by the Ld. CIT(A). No doubt the assessee has not raised specific ground in this regard but when the issue is legal the Ld. CIT(A) was required to decide the same as per submissions uploaded by the assessee as extracted in para 2(b) of the…

Shri. K V Satish Babu [HUF], Mysuru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2[1], Mysuru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 42/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(47)(v)Section 234

…developer on 03.12.2012 on fulfillment of the requirement of conversion of the land into non-agricultural in nature. 10. A reference was also made to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT reported in (2003) 260 ITR 491 which was followed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Dr. T.K. Dayalu (supra) in arriving at this conclusion. 11. On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Dr. T.K. Dayalu (supra) as well as the decision of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (supra). We have perused the…

Pulikkaparambil George Jacob, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

…ng Officer (AO), the JVA dated 04/2/2011 amounted to a transfer u/s. 2(47)(v) of the Act in view of part-performance, as defined u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act). Reliance was placed by him on Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia v. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 491 (Bom); CIT v. Dr. T.K. Dayalu [2011] 202 Taxman 531 (Kar); and Jasbir Singh Sarkaria In re [2007] 294 Taxman 196 (164 Taxman 108) (AAR-ND), as indeed on the decisions by the Apex Court in Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai, AIR 1982 SC 989 and Patel Natwarlal Rupiji v. Shri Kondh Group Kheti Vishayak, AIR 1996 SC 1088, explaining the concept…

Trilok Parumal Motiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue

ITA 4542/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyaltrilok Parumal Motiani, 213/214, Kalyandas Udyog Bhavan, Near Century Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aahpm3289N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian Respondent By : Sh. Purnesh Gururani, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2023 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai (For Short ‘Cit(A)’) Dated 30.04.2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Sh. Purnesh Gururani, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 48

…rts. 11. To substantiate its version assessee relied upon following case laws I. CIT Vs TATA Services Ltd 122 ITR 594 (Bomb) II. PCIT Vs Vembu Vaidyanathan 413 ITR 248(Bomb) III. CIT Vs City Bank N.A 261 ITR 570 (Bomb) IV. Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs CIT 260 ITR 491 (Bomb) V. CIT Vs Rajasthan Mirror Manufacturing Co 6 ITA No. 4542 Mum 2019-Trilok Parumal Motiani 12. In view of the above factual matrix and the judicial pronouncement of honourable jurisdictional high court we set aside the orders of the authorities below and accept the contentions of the assessee in the result Ground no. 1 along with additi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…TP Act, 1882 or under section 2(47)(v)&(vi) of the Act. 7.9 At this stage, it is appropriate to consider few judgements on this issue of transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. 7.10 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhujdas Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (260 ITR 491), considered this issue and it is necessary to first appreciate what this judgment lays down, and perhaps even more important that, what it does not lay down. 7.10 Their Lordships of Hon’ble Bombay High Court were examining the scope and import of Section 2(47)(v) which was introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 1988. This provision, which covers one of t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

…e of execution of Joint Development Agreement, when possession of property is handed over to the Developer due to the concept of Part Performance. The judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 has been relied upon by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the T.K. Dayalu decision. The Chaturbhuj decision lists out 6 conditions for satisfaction of Part Performance as per Section 2(47)(v) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The conditions specified in the said case law and their satisfaction in the pre…

Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 887/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsmt. Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Flat No. 204, Grant Canyon, Opp. Hdfc Bank, Pali Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan: Acxpc0971B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-23(1)(5), Room No. 114, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 2(47)Section 54

…should be reckoned from the date 8 ITA No. 887/Mum/2016-Smt. Hema Daljit Singh Chadha of part performance. The appellant relied on the following case laws which she claims to be in her favour. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Das Kapadia (2003) 180 CTR 107 (Bom) ITAT Ahmedabad D Bench in Hasmukhbhai M Patel (2011) 46 SOT 419 (Ahd) ITAT Chennai B Bench in R Kalanidhi (2009) 122 TTJ 405 (Chennai) ITAT Kolkatta A Bench in Chanchal Kumar Sircar (2012) 50 SOT 289 (Kol) ITAT Mumbai A Bench in Gripwell Industries Ltd (2006) 102 TTJ 441 (Mum) ITAT Pune Bench in Dyaneshwar Mulik (2005) 98 TTJ 179 (Pune). 10…

Mangilal Lakahji Chowdhary, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2791/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 269USection 41(1)Section 53A

…ot as an independent transferee. The provisions of clauses (v) and (vi) of section 2(47) which provide the meaning of the expression 'transfer' have been exhaustively explained by the Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 491 / 129 Taxman 497. It has been explained by the High Court that in situations attracting clauses (v ) and (vi) of section 2(47), capital gains will be taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered into even if the transfer of the immovable property is not effected or complete under the general law. It has been explained that in terms…

Shri. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

…ermission given under said agreement cannot be construed as delivery of possession under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. 7.3 According to Ld. A.R., the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s in the case of Chaturbhujdas Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (260 ITR 491), consider this issue and it was observed as under:- "Under Section2(47)(v), any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken or retained in part performance of the contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would come within the ambit of Section 2(47)(v). That, in order to attract Section 53A,…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Panyam Cement & Mineral Industris Limited, Nandyal

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

ITA 1963/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 53A

…power of attorney is given to developer and registration may be done subsequently. In this case, such GPA was entered into by the assessee in the AY 2006-07. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions: (a) Chaturbu] Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs C1T(Bom) 260 ITR 491 (b) Dyaneswar N Mulik Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani Vs JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM) 91 ITD 429 (d) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria in RE(AAR) 294 ITR 196 5. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing”. 4. Ld.Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution process took pl…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Limited, Nandyal

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

ITA 1039/HYD/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 53A

M/S. T V Aleyas Engineers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Bangalore

ITA 1667/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita 1667/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar,CIT

…nition uls.2(47)(v) of the Income tax Act, 1961 r.w.s.53 of Transfer of Property Act is the date, on which possession is handed over to the developers. The said decisions are not at applicable to the Appellant's case. i) Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Mumbai) ii) Authority of Advance Ruling in Jasbir Singh Sarkaria in RC Akkineni Rajeshwara Rao (ITA 5341I-IYD12014), dated 13.4.2012. 6 The Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the forgoing grounds. IV. For these and any other grounds that may be urged before the Hon'ble ITAT, it is prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT may allow the app…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Mangalore vs. M/S T V Aleyas Enginers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 1360/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita 1667/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar,CIT

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

…arnataka in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. Dr.T.K.Dayalu, reported in (2011) 60 DTR 0403/(2011) 202 Taxman 0531, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka referred to the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 260 ITR 491 wherein taking possession was also a condition precedent to consider the definition of transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act. In T.K. Dayalu’s case supra, possession of the Page 17 of 40 property was also given within the same financial year i.e., on 30.05.1996 and consequently the Hon’ble High Court has held that transfer was complete…

M/S Agnus Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 410/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Shasidhar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…bstantial questions of law framed in ITA No.3209/2005 in favour of the revenue and substantial Page 14 of 16 questions of law framed in ITA No.3105/2005 against the assessee …… ” 23. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 491/ 129 Taxman 497 held that the date relevant for attracting capital gain having regard to the definition under section 2(47) of the Act is the date on which possession is handed over by the developer and has observed as follows:- “Under section 2(47)(v), any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken over or retained in part perfor…

Smt. Kavitha Kamlesh Shah, Bangalore vs. ACIT-Circle-6(1), Bangalore

ITA 1509/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2021AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234BSection 54F

…this connection, it is submitted that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. T.K. Dayalu reported in 60 DTR (Kar) 403 / 202 Taxman 571, wherein the Hon'ble court followed the judgment of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom) were not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. The ld. AR further submitted that there was non-refundable consideration for the acquisition of undivided share in the land by the Developers apart from giving super-structure free of cost. Nowhere it is provided that the undivided share in the land was required to be transferred to…

Smt. Kavitha Kamlesh Shah, Bangalore vs. ACIT-Circle-6(1), Bangalore

ITA 1508/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234BSection 54F

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Khandelwal Infotech Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground raised by the assessee is without any merit, hence, dismissed

ITA 7463/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vikas Awasthyआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 7463/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Khandelwal Infotech Income Ltd. Circle-2(2)(1), Room No. 545, 5Th 2Nd Floor, 2 Rehem Mansion, बनाम/ Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 445 Bhagat Singh Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Colaba, Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaack1637J

For Appellant: Shri Gurbinder Singh, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 50C

…possession of land was handed over to the purchaser at the time of execution of Agreement to sell. To support his contention, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom). The CIT(A) directed the AO to refer valuation to DVO for determining the value of property as on 08.12.2008 for the purpose of computing long term capital gain u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In so far as, the assessee’s claim of cost of improvement of the property, the CIT(A) rejected the conten…