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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini?

228 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 48, Section 2(47), Section 2(47)(v).

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531)

ITO, Patiala vs. Sh.Ravinder Singh Bhatti, Patiala

In the result, appeals of the Revenue alongwith Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.M.Monga & Shri Rohit KauraFor Respondent: Shri Yoginder Mittal, Sr.DR

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 202Section 269Section 45Section 48Section 53A

…bmitted that the facts are identical to what has been argued in ITA 25 & 27/CHD/2017 and in the facts of the present case also the point at issue is fully covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of in the case of CIT Vs Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 86 Taxmann.com 94 wherein the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Charanjit Singh Atwal has been affirmed. Accordingly, it was the submission of the lar that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. 3. The ld. Sr.DR relies upon the assessment order. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record and…

The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Kochi vs. Sri.Prince Joseph, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 272/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)

…cellation agreement has no witness. 4. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini [(2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC)] held that the agreement for sale not being registered, does not have evidentiary value and cannot be termed as a sale as per the terms of provisions of section 53A of the Transfer Pricing Act and the Registration Act, as amended in the year 2001. Further, the CIT(A) noticed that the possession of the property was not handed over to the buye…

M/S Chandigarh Bottling Co., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 605/CHANDI/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar & Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Smt.Chander Kanta, Sr.DR

…m agitating his title to the property against the purchaser. (emphasis provided) ITA 605/CHD/2011 & ITA 1059/CHD/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 Page 4 of 8 5.4. Addressing the position of law on the said aspect, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in 398 ITR 531 (SC) in the case of CIT V Balbir Singh Maini. Apart from that, it was his submission that the decision is contrary to the position of law as has been considered by the Courts variously. Specific attention was invited to 162 ITR 888 in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Vs CWT, 184 ITR 461 in the case of CIT Vs F.X. Periera & Sons. Referring to the said de…

Smt Sarbani Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-49, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

ITA 720/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 54E

…st 2005 in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was devoid of any merit. 15. Our foregoing conclusion finds support in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VsBalbir S. Maini (398 ITR 531) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended in 2001 and in the specific context of its application for the purposes of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act; held that under section 2(47)(v), there must be a 'contract' which can be enforced in law under section 53A of the…

Smt Saki Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-49, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 54E

…st 2005 in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was devoid of any merit. 15. Our foregoing conclusion finds support in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VsBalbir S. Maini (398 ITR 531) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended in 2001 and in the specific context of its application for the purposes of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act; held that under section 2(47)(v), there must be a 'contract' which can be enforced in law under section 53A of the…

Sunil Kumar Suman, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6593/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C

…a transaction which is not finalized is at best a hypothetical income and cannot be brought to tax. For the purpose, he placed a reliance on the decisions reported in Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramana (1993) 201 ITR 1032 (Patna) and CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC). 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that in this matter having received a part of consideration the assessee delivered the possession of the property and also executed the registered instrument, as such, as rightly pointed out by the authorities below the transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. He further submitted that the decisions relied upon…

DCIT Non Corporate Circle 9(1), Chennai vs. Anil Sheth, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for 8

ITA 1705/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1705/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. Anil Sheth, Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Prince Marbles, Non Corporate Circle 9(1) No.34, Langs Garden Road, Chennai. Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. [Pan Addpa 3880A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Petchi, C.A

Section 2(47)Section 54F

…being no transfer, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, there could have been no assessment under the head income from capital gains or any other head. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini, 398 ITR 531. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 7. orders of the authorities below. Fundamental issue which has been raised by the ld. Authorised Representative is that there was no transfer falling within the meaning of Section2(47) of the Act during the relevant assessment year and therefore there could not have been any income for t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Shailendra Kumar Gautam, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5891/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13] The D.C.I.T Vs. Shri Shailender Kumar Gautam Central Circle 2642/3, Patel Road, New Delhi Near Pillar No. 214 Shadipur, New Delhi Pan : Adcpg 0128 L [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Shailender Kumar Gautam Vs. The D.C.I.T 2642/3, Patel Road, Central Circle Near Pillar No. 214 New Delhi Shadipur, New Delhi Pan : Adcpg 0128 L [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Vishwajit Gautam Vs. The D.C.I.T C-4/331, Sector 6 Central Circle Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aftpg 0824 J [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT- DR

Section 2(47)(v)

…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…

Vishvajit Gautam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5805/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13] The D.C.I.T Vs. Shri Shailender Kumar Gautam Central Circle 2642/3, Patel Road, New Delhi Near Pillar No. 214 Shadipur, New Delhi Pan : Adcpg 0128 L [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Shailender Kumar Gautam Vs. The D.C.I.T 2642/3, Patel Road, Central Circle Near Pillar No. 214 New Delhi Shadipur, New Delhi Pan : Adcpg 0128 L [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Vishwajit Gautam Vs. The D.C.I.T C-4/331, Sector 6 Central Circle Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aftpg 0824 J [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT- DR

Section 2(47)(v)

…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…

Shailender Gautam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5804/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13] The D.C.I.T Vs. Shri Shailender Kumar Gautam Central Circle 2642/3, Patel Road, New Delhi Near Pillar No. 214 Shadipur, New Delhi Pan : Adcpg 0128 L [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Shailender Kumar Gautam Vs. The D.C.I.T 2642/3, Patel Road, Central Circle Near Pillar No. 214 New Delhi Shadipur, New Delhi Pan : Adcpg 0128 L [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Vishwajit Gautam Vs. The D.C.I.T C-4/331, Sector 6 Central Circle Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aftpg 0824 J [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT- DR

Section 2(47)(v)

…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…

M.S. Lakshmi Bai, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1679/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…t developer has fulfilled the conditions of agreement and therefore on the facts of the case, no capital gains can be levied on assessee. 5.1. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [338 ITR 531(SC)] to submit that income from capital gain on a transaction which never capitalised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR…

R. Subba Laxmi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1600/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…t developer has fulfilled the conditions of agreement and therefore on the facts of the case, no capital gains can be levied on assessee. 5.1. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [338 ITR 531(SC)] to submit that income from capital gain on a transaction which never capitalised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR…

Viswanatha Reddy Potham, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1599/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…t developer has fulfilled the conditions of agreement and therefore on the facts of the case, no capital gains can be levied on assessee. 5.1. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [338 ITR 531(SC)] to submit that income from capital gain on a transaction which never capitalised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR…

Jillela Dasaratha Reddy, Rep by Gpa Holder, J Pedda Venkata Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1598/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…t developer has fulfilled the conditions of agreement and therefore on the facts of the case, no capital gains can be levied on assessee. 5.1. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [338 ITR 531(SC)] to submit that income from capital gain on a transaction which never capitalised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR…

Khambhampati Jayalakshmi, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1587/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…t developer has fulfilled the conditions of agreement and therefore on the facts of the case, no capital gains can be levied on assessee. 5.1. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [338 ITR 531(SC)] to submit that income from capital gain on a transaction which never capitalised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR…

Rama Rao Gottumukkala, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1233/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…f agreement and therefore on the facts of the case, no capital gains can be levied on assessee. ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 11 -: 10.1. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [338 ITR 531(SC)] to submit that income from capital gain on a transaction which never capitalised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR…

Kondal Rao Kurmyagari, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1232/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…f agreement and therefore on the facts of the case, no capital gains can be levied on assessee. ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 11 -: 10.1. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [338 ITR 531(SC)] to submit that income from capital gain on a transaction which never capitalised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR…

Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/s. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1st Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [PAN: AAFFT3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"…

Uppu Karunasesh, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 979/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.978 & 979/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT

Section 24Section 25BSection 26Section 27

…ation to immovable property, for the purpose of transfer, there should be a registered document. In this case, there was no registered document, therefore, there was no transfer at all. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), the Ld.counsel submitted that 5 I.T.A. Nos.978 & 979/Chny/15 the assessable income from house property is only after reducing the lease rental for acquiring the sub-lease. At the best, according to the Ld. counsel, by virtue of Section 26 of the Act, the assessee can be considered as co-owner along with the owner of the land and the shares o…

Uppu Karunasesh, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 978/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.978 & 979/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT

Section 24Section 25BSection 26Section 27

…ation to immovable property, for the purpose of transfer, there should be a registered document. In this case, there was no registered document, therefore, there was no transfer at all. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), the Ld.counsel submitted that 5 I.T.A. Nos.978 & 979/Chny/15 the assessable income from house property is only after reducing the lease rental for acquiring the sub-lease. At the best, according to the Ld. counsel, by virtue of Section 26 of the Act, the assessee can be considered as co-owner along with the owner of the land and the shares o…

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

What is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

ITO, Patiala vs. Sh.Ravinder Singh Bhatti, Patiala

The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Kochi vs. Sri.Prince Joseph, Kochi

M/S Chandigarh Bottling Co., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

Smt Sarbani Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-49, Kolkata

Smt Saki Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-49, Kolkata

Sunil Kumar Suman, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

DCIT Non Corporate Circle 9(1), Chennai vs. Anil Sheth, Chennai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Shailendra Kumar Gautam, New Delhi

Vishvajit Gautam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Shailender Gautam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M.S. Lakshmi Bai, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

R. Subba Laxmi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

Viswanatha Reddy Potham, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

Jillela Dasaratha Reddy, Rep by Gpa Holder, J Pedda Venkata Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

Khambhampati Jayalakshmi, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

Rama Rao Gottumukkala, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

Kondal Rao Kurmyagari, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyd, Hyderabad

Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Uppu Karunasesh, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

Uppu Karunasesh, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai