CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

398 ITR 531Supreme Court of India2017#391 most cited

What is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini authority for?

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

228

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Balbir Singh Maini · section 2(47)(v) · section 53A Transfer of Property Act · unregistered development agreement · joint development agreement · capital gains · transfer of immovable property · date of transfer · registration requirement · part performance

Also reported as

86 Taxmann.com 94251 Taxmann 20212 SCC 354

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 143(3)Section 147Section 48Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 45
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53asection 53section 2(47)jdajoint development agreementsection 49right to receiveproject completion methodtransfer of capital assetsection 45date of transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

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

…ed herewith with assessment year 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The provisions of sec.53A of the Transfer of Property Act has undergone a change in 2001 and the effect of the same was examined by Hon’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 assess…

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

…ed herewith with assessment year 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The provisions of sec.53A of the Transfer of Property Act has undergone a change in 2001 and the effect of the same was examined by Hon’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 assess…

K Gopal Raj, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Cen.Circle-1(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 773/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…Lakshmi and others, ITA No. 1561/Hyd/16 and others, order dated 28/02/2018. 2. Smt. G. Sailaja, ITA No. 51 & 579/Hyd/2016 and others, order dated 30/11/2017. 14 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others 3. CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC). 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that assessee has entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. for development of land belonging to assessee and his two sons, Sri K. Nagaraju and Sri K. Kishore Kumar on 03/02/2007. This agreement was registered. As per the…

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad vs. K Gopal Raj, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 765/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…Lakshmi and others, ITA No. 1561/Hyd/16 and others, order dated 28/02/2018. 2. Smt. G. Sailaja, ITA No. 51 & 579/Hyd/2016 and others, order dated 30/11/2017. 14 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others 3. CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC). 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that assessee has entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. for development of land belonging to assessee and his two sons, Sri K. Nagaraju and Sri K. Kishore Kumar on 03/02/2007. This agreement was registered. As per the…

ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Kosetty Nagaraju, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 343/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…Lakshmi and others, ITA No. 1561/Hyd/16 and others, order dated 28/02/2018. 2. Smt. G. Sailaja, ITA No. 51 & 579/Hyd/2016 and others, order dated 30/11/2017. 14 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others 3. CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC). 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that assessee has entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. for development of land belonging to assessee and his two sons, Sri K. Nagaraju and Sri K. Kishore Kumar on 03/02/2007. This agreement was registered. As per the…

ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Kosetty Kishore, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…Lakshmi and others, ITA No. 1561/Hyd/16 and others, order dated 28/02/2018. 2. Smt. G. Sailaja, ITA No. 51 & 579/Hyd/2016 and others, order dated 30/11/2017. 14 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others 3. CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC). 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that assessee has entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. for development of land belonging to assessee and his two sons, Sri K. Nagaraju and Sri K. Kishore Kumar on 03/02/2007. This agreement was registered. As per the…

Mallika Investment Co. (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1245/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1245/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 139(1)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 53A

…ec. 53A of the of TP Act 1882 ; and the lower authorities erred in treating the transaction as transfer of immovable property invoking section 53A of TP Act 1882. For that he relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Mani (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) and drew our attention to page 547 of the order wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “It is also well-settled by this court that the protection provided under section 53A is only a shield, and can only be resorted to as a right of defence. See Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra [2004] 8 SCC 614 at 619, para 10. An agr…

K T Dongre & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 10(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4733/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S. K.T. Dongre & Co. P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1) C/O. Shyam Malpani & Assocaites Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 307, Chartered House Vs. Mumbai 400020 297/299, Dr. C.H. Street Mumbai 400002 Pan – Aaack9366J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Gopal Respondent By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-21, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2013 & It Relates To A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: - “1. The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred As "Cit (A)") Has Erred Confirming The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Making Addition Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,90,67,850/- Based On Agreement For Sale Dated 12.10.2007 Entered Into With M/S. Nensee Construction Pvt. Ltd. Inspite Of The Fact That There Is No Performance On The Part Of The Concerned Parties In Relation To The Such Agreement Of Sale. Therefore, There Is No Transfer Or Deemed Transfer Within The Meaning Of Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Question Of Taxing Such Capital Gains Which Had Not Been Accrued Or Deemed To Had Been Accrued Does Not Arise. Such Long Term Capital Gain Has Been Worked Out By Considering The Sale Consideration At Rs.5,34,02,500/- As Against Agreement Price Of Rs.1,80,00,000/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Utter Disregard To The Pending Litigations I.E. The Company Petition No.809 Of 2003 Filed By An Alleged Creditor For Winding Up Of The Assessee Company & Also A Cloud In The Title Due

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member M/s. K.T. Dongre & Co. P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1) C/o. Shyam Malpani & Assocaites Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 307, Chartered House Vs. Mumbai 400020 297/299, Dr. C.H. Street Mumbai 400002 PAN – AAACK9366J Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri K. Gopal Respondent by: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of Hearing: 30.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-21, Mumb…

Pushpa Gautam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5806/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 53A

…s in issues, provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act the r.w.s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 are not applicable because this issue is now well settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini CS Atwal 398 ITR 531 wherein it was held that : “20. The effect of the aforesaid amendment is that, on and after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2001, if an agreement, like the JDA in the present case, is not registered, then it shall have no effect in law for the purposes of Section 53A. In short, there is no agreement in the eyes of law which can be enforc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Goel Jewellers Overseas Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 6757/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12 Goel Jewellers Overseas Jcit Corp. Range-33 C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Vs. Part-I New Delhi Pan : Aagfg6440E Assessment Year: Acit Goel Jewellers Overseas Circle-51(1) Corporation New Delhi 2213, Gurudwara Road, Vs. Karol Bagh New Delhi Pan : Aagfg6440E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Ashema Neb, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashema Neb, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Goel Jewellers Overseas JCIT Corp. Range-33 C/o. M/s. RRA Taxindia, New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Vs. Part-I New Delhi PAN : AAGFG6440E Assessment Year: ACIT Goel Jewellers Overseas Circle-51(1) Corporation New Delhi 2213, Gurudwara Road, Vs. Karol Bagh New Delhi PAN : AAGFG6440E Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. Ashema Neb, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Adv. Date of hearing : 23.07.2018 Date of pronounce…

M/S. Goel Jewellers Overseas Corp., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 6260/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12 Goel Jewellers Overseas Jcit Corp. Range-33 C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Vs. Part-I New Delhi Pan : Aagfg6440E Assessment Year: Acit Goel Jewellers Overseas Circle-51(1) Corporation New Delhi 2213, Gurudwara Road, Vs. Karol Bagh New Delhi Pan : Aagfg6440E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Ashema Neb, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashema Neb, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Goel Jewellers Overseas JCIT Corp. Range-33 C/o. M/s. RRA Taxindia, New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Vs. Part-I New Delhi PAN : AAGFG6440E Assessment Year: ACIT Goel Jewellers Overseas Circle-51(1) Corporation New Delhi 2213, Gurudwara Road, Vs. Karol Bagh New Delhi PAN : AAGFG6440E Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. Ashema Neb, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Adv. Date of hearing : 23.07.2018 Date of pronounce…

Shri Goru Ram Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 1008/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT)
Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1008/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Goru Ram Yadav, I.T.O., Vs. Nari ka Bas (Peethawas), Panchayat Ward 3(1), Hatoj, Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AMMPY 4405 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT…

Rajan Srinivasan HUF, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 470/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Rajan R. Srinivasan (Huf), The Deputy No. 2965, 4Th Cross, Commissioner Of Income 12Th Main, Hal Ii Stage, Vs. Tax, Indiranagar, Circle – 7 (1), Bangalore – 560 008. Bangalore. Pan: Aajhr1684Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)-Ltu, Bangalore Dated 28.07.2014 For Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under. “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Rajan R. Srinivasan (HUF), The Deputy No. 2965, 4th Cross, Commissioner of Income 12th Main, HAL II Stage, Vs. Tax, Indiranagar, Circle – 7 (1), Bangalore – 560 008. Bangalore. PAN: AAJHR1684Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appe…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels 321 ITR 165 (Rajasthan). 5.10 The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini reported in 398 ITR 531, wherein it is held that that in order to qualify as a ‘transfer’ of a capital asset under section 2(47)(v), there must be a contract, which can be enforced in law under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no such contract in the instant case and, therefore, the transaction would not qualify for ‘t…

Moni Kumar Subba, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3982/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels 321 ITR 165 (Rajasthan). 5.10 The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini reported in 398 ITR 531, wherein it is held that that in order to qualify as a ‘transfer’ of a capital asset under section 2(47)(v), there must be a contract, which can be enforced in law under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no such contract in the instant case and, therefore, the transaction would not qualify for ‘t…

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)

…that recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act in 35 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini in 398 ITR 531 (Supra) while construing a joint development agreement in relation to the land in which the possession of the land was also delivered to the developer. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prior to the year 2001, the contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act does not require any registration and if th…

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)

…that recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act in 35 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini in 398 ITR 531 (Supra) while construing a joint development agreement in relation to the land in which the possession of the land was also delivered to the developer. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prior to the year 2001, the contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act does not require any registration and if th…

Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2054/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)

…that recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act in 35 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini in 398 ITR 531 (Supra) while construing a joint development agreement in relation to the land in which the possession of the land was also delivered to the developer. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prior to the year 2001, the contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act does not require any registration and if th…

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

ITA 2053/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)

…that recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act in 35 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini in 398 ITR 531 (Supra) while construing a joint development agreement in relation to the land in which the possession of the land was also delivered to the developer. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prior to the year 2001, the contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act does not require any registration and if th…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Sthak Ahmed Shaw, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 401/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Salendra Mamidi,PCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mrs.Vidya,C.A
Section 2Section 2(47)(v)Section 45Section 50CSection 53A

…the respective assessment years as per the directions of Hon.ITAT in thease’s co owner case. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531 (SC) ) clearly shows that there was a case where the transaction never materialized and consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that as the transaction did not materialize, capital gains could not be taxed :- 7 -: on hypothetical income. In the present case, admittedly the possession of the property in compliance with th…