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 366,339 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

Sri Mahendrasingh Ramsingh Jadav, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 32/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Jinita Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54(1)

…r the terms of the agreement, the assessee is deemed to have held the right in the said property since February 2006. 5. The learned Departmental Representative relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini [(2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC)] submitted that the sale agreement not registered does not give any legal efficacy and it cannot be stated that the impugned flat was held by the assessee from the date of allotment of flat. It was further submitted by the learned DR that the permission to construct the impugned flat has been issued by Thane Municipal Corporation only on 17.…

Mr. Prakash Chand Bethala, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Bangalore

ITA 999/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 234Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2007-08 Mr. Prakash Chand Bethala, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 815, 80 feet Ring Road, of Income Tax, 8th Block, Koramangala, Circle 7[1], Bangalore – 560 095. Bengaluru. PAN: AABHK 7700G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 11.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by…

Faiza Hemeed, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 187/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Faiza Hameed, The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Veerabadran Street, V. International Taxation, Nungambakkam, Ward-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. Pan: Abwph4868A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021

For Appellant: Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 187/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Faiza Hameed, The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Veerabadran Street, v. International Taxation, Nungambakkam, Ward-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. PAN: ABWPH4868A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G.Jo…

D.L. Khandge, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 652/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2007-08

Section 148Section 269Section 45Section 50C

…o the amendment to section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 14 of the Registration Act w.e.f. 24-09- 2001, registration of contract has now become mandatory to constitute “transfer”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT VS. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) has held that: `after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2001, if an agreement, V.L. Khandge and Santosh D. Khandge like the JDA in the present case, is not registered, then it shall have no effect in law for the purposes of Section 53A.’ As a logical corollary, the position is otherwise in the period anterior to the said amendments…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…tisfied for recognising sale proceeds during year under consideration. A.5. In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon following decisions: • ED.Sasoon & CO Ltd vs CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) • CIT vs Balbir Singh Maini reported in (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) • CIT vs Excel industries Ltd reported in (2013) 358 ITR 295 • Prakashan leasing Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2012) 208 Taxmann 464 (Kar) A.6. Ld.Counsel also relied on CBDT Notification No.9949 (F.NO.132/7/95-TPL)/SO 69(E), Dated 25/01/1996, superseded by Notification No.32/2015 (F.N.134/48/2010-TPL)/S0 892 (E), Dated 31/03/2015, regarding AS-…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Amco Batteries Ltd

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

ITA/572/2013HC Karnataka18 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 260Section 260A

…over and the re opening of the assessment is beyond four years, which is not permissible in law. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BALBIR SINGH MAINI', 398 ITR 531 (SC) and decision of this court in 'VENKATESH POWER WORKS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', 278 ITR 436. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer while re opening the assessment, it is evident that Assessing Of…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1460/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…In order to drive home his claim that there was no transfer of the land under consideration within the meaning of Sec. 2(47)(v) & (vi) of the Act, the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) and that of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT Vs. Fardeen Khan (2019) 411 ITR 533 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that both of the lower authorities had erred in law and the facts of the case by saddling the assessee with capital gain income in respect of a transaction which had never fructified. Per contra, the ld…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1459/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…In order to drive home his claim that there was no transfer of the land under consideration within the meaning of Sec. 2(47)(v) & (vi) of the Act, the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) and that of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT Vs. Fardeen Khan (2019) 411 ITR 533 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that both of the lower authorities had erred in law and the facts of the case by saddling the assessee with capital gain income in respect of a transaction which had never fructified. Per contra, the ld…

Sri Chandrashekar Naganagouda Patil, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1984/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Mallaha Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1984(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Chandrashekar Naganagouda Patil, No.GR2, Lavina Courts 67, 7th Cross, RMV Extension, Sadhashivanagar, Bangalore-560 080 PAN No.ACFPP7579J Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mallaha Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT Date of hearing : 25-06-2020 Date of pronouncement : 29-06-2020 O R D E R PER N.V.VASUDEVA…

Universal Medicare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

ITA 4418/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Shah AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 254(1)Section 50B

…essing the entire amount as chargeable to tax in the current year. In support of his other submission, the ld. AR of the assessee also relied on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Mrs. Hemal Raju Shete (239 Taxmann 176 (Bom. HC).  CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531(SC).  E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (AIR 1954 SC 470).  CIT vs. Excel Industries (358 ITR 295 SC).  Morvi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (82 ITR 835 SC).  Late Shri Gordhandas S. Garodia (Through LR’s vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5097/Mum/2015.  CIT vs. M/s Nagarjuna Fertiliser (ITTA No. 100 of 2003 (AP High Court.  DCIT vs. Rohan Projects (113 taxmann.com…

Sh. Net Ram, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6302/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6300/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Uday Vir, Sh. Ram Kishan, Sh. Vs Income Tax Officer, Kawal Singh S/O Lt. Shri Chand, Ward-4(5), Smt. Vishan Devi, Legal Heirs Of Gurgaon Shri Chand S/O Sh. Todar, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Benpc7845D

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…operty by the amount of Rs.3.74 crores on sale of the said properly at the time of computation of capital gains as may be arising on account of sale of the said property." 25. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531, have held that where for want of permissions, entire transaction of development of land envisages in joint development agreement fell through, there would be no profit or gain which arose from the transfer of capital asset which could be brought to tax u/s 45 read with section 48. The relevant observations made by the lordship in this regard rea…

Sh. Jeet Ram, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6301/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6300/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Uday Vir, Sh. Ram Kishan, Sh. Vs Income Tax Officer, Kawal Singh S/O Lt. Shri Chand, Ward-4(5), Smt. Vishan Devi, Legal Heirs Of Gurgaon Shri Chand S/O Sh. Todar, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Benpc7845D

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…operty by the amount of Rs.3.74 crores on sale of the said properly at the time of computation of capital gains as may be arising on account of sale of the said property." 25. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531, have held that where for want of permissions, entire transaction of development of land envisages in joint development agreement fell through, there would be no profit or gain which arose from the transfer of capital asset which could be brought to tax u/s 45 read with section 48. The relevant observations made by the lordship in this regard rea…

Sh. Shri Chand Through Legal Heir Sh. Uday Vir, Sh. Ram Kishan, Sh. Kawal Singh and Smt. Vishan Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6300/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6300/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Uday Vir, Sh. Ram Kishan, Sh. Vs Income Tax Officer, Kawal Singh S/O Lt. Shri Chand, Ward-4(5), Smt. Vishan Devi, Legal Heirs Of Gurgaon Shri Chand S/O Sh. Todar, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Benpc7845D

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…operty by the amount of Rs.3.74 crores on sale of the said properly at the time of computation of capital gains as may be arising on account of sale of the said property." 25. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531, have held that where for want of permissions, entire transaction of development of land envisages in joint development agreement fell through, there would be no profit or gain which arose from the transfer of capital asset which could be brought to tax u/s 45 read with section 48. The relevant observations made by the lordship in this regard rea…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Narayan Mandyam Veerabudhi, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR
Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 54F

…lant in the scheduled property are treated as Long Term Capital Gains. Hence, the ground of appeal is hereby allow.” 6. Before us the ld DR placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 537. The ld DR submitted that in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court also, a joint development agreement was entered into and he same was cancelled later. The Supreme Court held that the compensation received on the said ITA No.1248 /Bang/2016 Page 13 of 17 cancellation of the Joint Development Agreement would not be profit or gain, which arises…

M/S. Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of our directions contained in the preceding

ITA 2282/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…has been added is only a notional amount of consideration which has neither been earned nor received and nor is receivable by the assessee. The Hon’ble 50 M/s. Religare Securities Ltd. vs ACIT Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini reported in 398 ITR 531 (SC) examined the meaning of word ‘accrue’ in relation to section 48 of the Act and held that the word ‘accrue’ would only refer to real income and no notional amount could be brought to tax in the hands of the transfer u/s 45 read with section 48 of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are as under: "14. First of all,…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tvh Ekanta, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-

ITA 607/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10Section 80Section 80I

…the latest agreement was made on 17.02.2011 and the earliest date of registration was 29.06.2007 and the latest date of sale deed for UDS registration was 17.12.2011. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC), held that “there is no contract in the eye of law in Force u/s.53A after 2001 unless the said contract is registered. This being the case, and it being clear that the said JDA was never registered. Since the JDA has no efficacy in the eye of law, obviously no “transfer’ can be said to have ITA Nos.588,607 & 3422/Chny/2016 :- 8 -: taken pla…

Tvh Ekanta, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-

ITA 588/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10Section 80Section 80I

…the latest agreement was made on 17.02.2011 and the earliest date of registration was 29.06.2007 and the latest date of sale deed for UDS registration was 17.12.2011. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC), held that “there is no contract in the eye of law in Force u/s.53A after 2001 unless the said contract is registered. This being the case, and it being clear that the said JDA was never registered. Since the JDA has no efficacy in the eye of law, obviously no “transfer’ can be said to have ITA Nos.588,607 & 3422/Chny/2016 :- 8 -: taken pla…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tvh Ekanta, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-

ITA 3422/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10Section 80Section 80I

…the latest agreement was made on 17.02.2011 and the earliest date of registration was 29.06.2007 and the latest date of sale deed for UDS registration was 17.12.2011. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC), held that “there is no contract in the eye of law in Force u/s.53A after 2001 unless the said contract is registered. This being the case, and it being clear that the said JDA was never registered. Since the JDA has no efficacy in the eye of law, obviously no “transfer’ can be said to have ITA Nos.588,607 & 3422/Chny/2016 :- 8 -: taken pla…

Murugesan Balakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2949/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramakrishnan, Shri SanjivFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,Addl.CIT
Section 47(1)Section 54

…ficer has not examined various aspects of the taxation in its proper perspective. Therefore, we deem it fit to remit this issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC), the capital gains arising from the sale of immovable property can be assessed in the year in which the registration of the property is executed. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine afresh and assess the capital gains in the year in which the registration was executed. The assessee shall lay all materials in support of his…

D.Kantabai, Chenani vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1969/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1968 & 1969/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 Ms. D. Kantabai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.13, South Usman Road, Income Tax, T. Nagar Non-Corporate Circle – 1, Chennai – 600 017 Chennai [Pan Aagpk 8590D ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Banusekar, Advocate Department By : Mr. A.R.V. Sreenivasan,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman: The Assessee Filed These Appeals Against The Orders Of The Cit(Appeals)-2, Chennai In Ita Nos.31/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & 79/Cit(A)-2/2015-16; Dated 30.06.2017 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13, Respectively.

For Appellant: Mr. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. A.R.V. Sreenivasan,JCIT
Section 17ASection 2(47)(v)Section 234BSection 53ASection 54F

…fer of Property Act, 1882. The power of attorney was executed in favour of the developer in order to enable the legal formalities of construction activity. Relying on the Supreme Court decision of the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC), the learned Authorized Representative inviting our attention to the paragraph 20 of the decision and submitted that it is held therein that “there is no contract in the eye of law in Force u/s.53A after 2001 unless the said contract is registered. This being the case, and it being clear that the said JDA was never registered. Since the JDA…