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

Rajamanickam Meerabai, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 923/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 923/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006 - 07 Smt. Rajamanikam Meerabai, The Income Tax Officer, Door No.29, Old No.T-2-2, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -15(3), Cauveri Salai Chennai. Besant Nagar South, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aaopm 7401M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A ""यथ"क" ओ रसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai In Ita No.180/Cit(A)-15/2016-17 Dated 21.09.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2006-07 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 31.03.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Computing Long Term Capital Gain & Disallowing The Claim Of Exemption U/S.54 Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Which Are Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54

…uments of Revenue. But the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT, [2020] 115 taxmann.com 5 (SC) following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini, [2018] 12 SCC 354 held that the transfer will complete in regard to property rights whenever owners rights have been extinguished. In the present case before us, the rights get extinguished on 19.07.2007 and not on the date of Agreement to sale i.e., 04.02.2006. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd., supra, has considered this issue as…

M/S Bellary Iron-Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

ITA 15/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…order to resolve the disputes arising as to whether a particular item was taxable or not applying the concept of income. 4.7 He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as recently as in 2017, in another landmark decision in CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC)/2017 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC), referred to the said decision in E.D. Sassoon & Co. (Supra) in deciding whether the assessee acquired any right to receive the income under the JDA as soon as it was executed or only when he was entitled to receive the built-up/developed area in lieu of transfer/exchange of land, creating a corresponding liabilit…

M/S Bellary Iron-Ores Pvt Ltd, Bellary vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Hospet

ITA 1540/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…order to resolve the disputes arising as to whether a particular item was taxable or not applying the concept of income. 4.7 He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as recently as in 2017, in another landmark decision in CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC)/2017 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC), referred to the said decision in E.D. Sassoon & Co. (Supra) in deciding whether the assessee acquired any right to receive the income under the JDA as soon as it was executed or only when he was entitled to receive the built-up/developed area in lieu of transfer/exchange of land, creating a corresponding liabilit…

Mr. Anthony P Lewis, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1813/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe &For Respondent: Smt Sailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54

…provisions of Section 53A of TPA were not attracted. In this regard, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rambhau Namdeo Gajre vs. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra : (2004) 8 SCC 614, in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini: (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) and Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.: (2012) 340 ITR 1 (SC). 6.3.3. Inviting our attention to the application for admission of additional evidence, she pleaded that the additional evidence be admitted. She submitted that the Appellant has placed on record along with the aforesaid application copy of the Proper…

Ramesh Chandra Vaish, Allahabad vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 59/ALLD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: None (Application)For Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…tted that it was simply an unregistered agreement to sale on the notarized stamp paper of 100/- and hence it could not be said that the transfer is complete keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531(SC). It was also submitted that the assessee has never executed sale deed but simply agreement was entered into. It was submitted that no transfer of ownership took place as the said party not even made the full payment to the assessee.It was submitted that since the document was unregistered agreement not registered with Sub…

Ramesh Chandra Vaish, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 100/ALLD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: None (Application)For Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…tted that it was simply an unregistered agreement to sale on the notarized stamp paper of 100/- and hence it could not be said that the transfer is complete keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531(SC). It was also submitted that the assessee has never executed sale deed but simply agreement was entered into. It was submitted that no transfer of ownership took place as the said party not even made the full payment to the assessee.It was submitted that since the document was unregistered agreement not registered with Sub…

DCIT Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane

ITA 2218/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…ofit element embedded in the “on money” and not the entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee…

DCIT Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane

ITA 2217/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…ofit element embedded in the “on money” and not the entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1966/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…ofit element embedded in the “on money” and not the entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1965/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…ofit element embedded in the “on money” and not the entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane

ITA 1964/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…ofit element embedded in the “on money” and not the entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1963/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…ofit element embedded in the “on money” and not the entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1962/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…ofit element embedded in the “on money” and not the entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1961/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…ofit element embedded in the “on money” and not the entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee…

ITO, Ward-10(3), Delhi vs. Grow More Buildtech Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is

ITA 2002/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Grow More Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Ward 10(3), Delhi. Plot No. 77, S.A. House, Sector-44, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccg3841L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 03/Del/2022 (In Ita No. 2002/Del/2021) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 147

…construe transfer of title over the property. Merely on the basis of agreement to sale, it cannot be said that sale of immovable property has taken place. This is the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 6 case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC). Thus, in our view, the Assessing Officer fell into error while holding that the profit on sale of land is taxable in the impugned assessment year. 6. In any case of the matter, the facts on record demonstrate that the assessee has offered the profit from sale of land in the return of income filed in the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessi…

Sulochana Saijan Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 557/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

…as part of the consideration has already been paid by account payee cheuqe at the time of entering to purchase agreement. Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vsBalbir Singh Maini & Ors. 398 ITR 531 [2017] (SC) is not applicable over the facts of the instant case, as in the said case, Hon’ble Apex Court held that “there cannot be transfer of immovable property without registration of sale agreement whereas 8 | P a g e in the instant case, the letter of allotment/agreement is the document which shows intention of the party to transfer at a f…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 5067/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…nsaction never materialized. 26 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune 33. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Balbir Singh Maini: 398 ITR 531 (SC) wherein the apex Court held that recognition of revenue on the basis of an unregistered JDA which was subsequently cancelled shall tantamount to taxation of hypothetical income. The pertinent findings of the Court are as under: "27. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the income from capital gain on a transaction which never…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 1155/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…nsaction never materialized. 26 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune 33. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Balbir Singh Maini: 398 ITR 531 (SC) wherein the apex Court held that recognition of revenue on the basis of an unregistered JDA which was subsequently cancelled shall tantamount to taxation of hypothetical income. The pertinent findings of the Court are as under: "27. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the income from capital gain on a transaction which never…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 109/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…nsaction never materialized. 26 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune 33. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Balbir Singh Maini: 398 ITR 531 (SC) wherein the apex Court held that recognition of revenue on the basis of an unregistered JDA which was subsequently cancelled shall tantamount to taxation of hypothetical income. The pertinent findings of the Court are as under: "27. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the income from capital gain on a transaction which never…

The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Thrissur vs. Sri.T.G. Chandrakumar, Thrissur

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 67/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, FCA
Section 132Section 153CSection 268A

…state that the amendments to the Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (vide Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001), no cognizance to part performance can be given, even as explained in CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC). We have, on facts, found the Agreement dated 07/03/2007 to be a make-believe. The Tribunal for AY 2009-10 (PB-1, pgs.72-78) proceeds on the basis of the validity of the said Agreement; the same being not an issue before it. In fact, it refers to an Agreement dated 17/3/2007 (refer para 2 of it’s order), which appears to be a mistake inasmuc…