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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

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

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

ITA 1968/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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…

Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kol - 4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 244ASection 263

…e Court. He submitted that there was no transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act and hence no capital gain has arisen during the year. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC), wherein it was held that when a JDA is not registered, it shall not have the effect of law for the purpose of Section 53A of the Act and hence there is no transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act. He argued that as the document in question was an unregistered document, there cannot be any transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act. He further relied on this judgme…