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

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53asection 53section 2(47)joint development agreementjdatransfer of capital assetdate of transfersection 45section 54long term capital gainfair market value

Judgments citing Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

ITO WD 21(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5038/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Ito Ward 21(1)(1), Shri Bharat Raojibhai Patel Mumbai 34, Ram Niwas Valabhnagar Vs. Society, N S Road No.3, Jvpd, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400 056

For Appellant: Smt Bharati SinghFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R Parikh
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

…from other sources. The AO also disallowed the claim of exemptions u/s. 54 and 54EC of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), who following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia 260 ITR 491 (Bom) allowed the claim of the assessee and treated the sale of property by way of development rights as capital asset u/s. 2(14) of the Act. 5. As regards the application of the provisions of section 50C for adopting the stamp duty valuation, the CIT(A) held that the consideration received at Rs.2,76,82,928/- is higher than the stamp authority v…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Avdh Narayan Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are treated as allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6062/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 Dcit-24(3), Shri Avadh Narayan Singh, R. No.701, C-11, 7Th Floor, 204, Awadh House, बनाम/ B.K.C. Bandra (East), Thakur Laxmi Singh Vs. Mumbai-400051 Estate, S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 Pan No.Aazps6963P (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)

…03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT ( 260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Satyaprakash Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are treated as allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6061/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 Dcit-24(3), Shri Satyaprakash Singh, R. No.701, C-11, 7Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Laxmi Niwas, बनाम/ B.K.C. Bandra (East), Laxmi Singh Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400051 S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400092 Pan No.Aarps9776J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)

…03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT ( 260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

Satyaprakash Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are treated as allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7982/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 2(47)

…03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT ( 260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transfe…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Satyaprakash Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are treated as allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7518/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 2(47)

…03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT ( 260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transfe…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Awadhnarayan Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are treated as allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7517/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 2(47)

…03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT ( 260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transfe…

Awadhnarayan Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are treated as allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7363/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 2(47)

…03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT ( 260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transfe…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/205/2015HC Karnataka16 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 45(2)

…builder on handing over of the possession of the property for joint development. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the AO has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom) rendered on 13.2.2007, which was much before when the AO concluded the original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007. The other decision referred to by the AO in the reasons recorded is CIT v. T.K. Dayalu, 202 Taxman 531. This decision was rendered on 20.6.2011, after the conclusion of the original ass…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Uday Kashinath Sathe, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2343/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Uday Kashinath Sathe, Ward-3(4), 403,404, Happy Valley Phase बनाम/ Room No.9, B-Wing, Vi, Manpada, Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Nr. Tikujiniwadi, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Adups7623L

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 54E

…t clearly implies that the assessee has transferred complete control over the property in favour of the developers on 16.03.2005 itself. He thereupon referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chatrubhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT 260 ITR 491 wherein the court observed that any transaction involving possession to be taken over or retained in part-performance of a contract would come within the ambit of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. In the instant case the transferee has the right to enter upon the property and hence it is deemed possession. The court further observed that developers ag…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vs. M/S Post & Bsnl Employees

The appeal is dismissed

RP/205/2015HC Karnataka24 Jul 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 45(2)

…builder on handing over of the possession of the property for joint development. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the AO has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom) rendered on 13.2.2007, which was much before when the AO concluded the original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007. The other decision referred to by the AO in the reasons recorded is CIT v. T.K. Dayalu, 202 Taxman 531. This decision was rendered on 20.6.2011, after the conclusion of the original ass…