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 366,005 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

ITO 20(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Shehab Sultan Bohra, Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3692/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3171/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shehab S.Bohra Income Tax Officer 20(3)(3) Flat No. 1202, 12Th Floor Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Yash Height Chsl Parel Nesbit Road Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Near Union Bank Of India Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Chetan Karia,Ld. ARFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ame the parting with possession of the capital assets is the prime requirement so as to constitute transfer. Shehab S.Bohra Assessment Year-2010-11 8. At this juncture, we find that the Apex Court, in recent judgment titled as CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017 86 Taxmann.com 94 dated 04/10/2017] had occasion to deal with the identical situation. We find the same to very relevant and applicable to the facts of the issue in hand. Hence, we extract the operative portion of the said judgment as follows:- 16. A reading of the JDA shows that, it is essentially an agreement to facilitate development of 21.2 acres so that…

Shehab S Bohra, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3)(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3171/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3171/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shehab S.Bohra Income Tax Officer 20(3)(3) Flat No. 1202, 12Th Floor Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Yash Height Chsl Parel Nesbit Road Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Near Union Bank Of India Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Chetan Karia,Ld. ARFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ame the parting with possession of the capital assets is the prime requirement so as to constitute transfer. Shehab S.Bohra Assessment Year-2010-11 8. At this juncture, we find that the Apex Court, in recent judgment titled as CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017 86 Taxmann.com 94 dated 04/10/2017] had occasion to deal with the identical situation. We find the same to very relevant and applicable to the facts of the issue in hand. Hence, we extract the operative portion of the said judgment as follows:- 16. A reading of the JDA shows that, it is essentially an agreement to facilitate development of 21.2 acres so that…

Valueline Equities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

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

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 04/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11) M/s. Valueline Equities ITO 4(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 405, Apeejay House M.K. Road 4th Floor, Bomay New Marine Lines Samachar Mumbai-4000020. Marg, Fort Mumbai-400 001. PAN : AAACS6107C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jitendra Jain Department by Ms. Pooja Swaroop Date of Hearing 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 25.10.2017 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 19-02- 20…

Official Liquidator

Appeals are allowed

OLR/11/2016HC Karnataka26 Aug 2016

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

Section 27

…was handed over to the CIDL. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following authorities: • Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini14 14 [2017] 398 ITR 531 (para 18 & 20) W.T.A No.11 OF 2016 C/W W.T.A NO.9 OF 2016 W.T.A NO.10 OF 2016 12 • Seshasayee Steels (P…

Official Liquidator

Appeals are allowed

OLR/10/2016HC Karnataka26 Aug 2016

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

Section 27

…was handed over to the CIDL. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following authorities: • Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini14 14 [2017] 398 ITR 531 (para 18 & 20) W.T.A No.11 OF 2016 C/W W.T.A NO.9 OF 2016 W.T.A NO.10 OF 2016 12 • Seshasayee Steels (P…

Official Liquidator

Appeals are allowed

OLR/9/2016HC Karnataka25 Aug 2016

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

Section 27

…was handed over to the CIDL. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following authorities: • Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini14 14 [2017] 398 ITR 531 (para 18 & 20) W.T.A No.11 OF 2016 C/W W.T.A NO.9 OF 2016 W.T.A NO.10 OF 2016 12 • Seshasayee Steels (P…

Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S Spa Computers Pvt Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/10/2016HC Karnataka16 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 27

…was handed over to the CIDL. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following authorities: • Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini14 14 [2017] 398 ITR 531 (para 18 & 20) W.T.A No.11 OF 2016 C/W W.T.A NO.9 OF 2016 W.T.A NO.10 OF 2016 12 • Seshasayee Steels (P…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

ITTA/33/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY