What is CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. authority for?

A right to purchase property under an agreement to sell is a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. The relinquishment or extinguishment of such a right constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, the consideration for which is taxable as capital gains.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Tata Services Ltd.?

76 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. (122 ITR 594), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 2(14), Section 50C, Section 143(1).

CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. (122 ITR 594)

Rajasekhar Naidu Galla, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 917/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…sed as per the sale agreement dated 30.08.2012. We further note that Section 2(14) of the Act defines property of any kind to include intangible rights and contractual rights. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Services Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594, had an occasion to examine the right to purchase the property under an agreement to sell and held that, the said right is a capital asset falling under Section 2(14) of the Act. Once the assessee has got a right to purchase the property, then relinquishment or extinguishment of any right in the said property amounts to transfer of property of an…

Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkatq

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: S/shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM DCIT, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACH7998D Assessee by : S/shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue by : Shri Madhumita Das, DR Date of hearing: 15.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless…

Milan Saini, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

…'capital asset', would arise only if the right to claim damages is held to be a 'capital asset'. But, again, it will have to be examined if such a right could be transferred. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. [1980] 122 ITR 594 it was contended by Shri Wadhera the learned counsel for the revenue, that any right which can be called property will be included in the definition of 'capital asset' and that a contract for sale of land is capable of specific performance and is also assignable, and he referred to section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, according…

Neptune Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 3310/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Neptune Enterprises Ito 16(1)(3) B-3, Prem Sagar 447, Aayakar Bhavan, Building, M. K. Road, Linking Road, Vs. Mumbai- 400020. Khar (W.), Mumbai- 400052. Pan: Aaafn3167H Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, SR. A.R

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Neptune Enterprises ITO 16(1)(3) B-3, Prem Sagar 447, Aayakar Bhavan, Building, M. K. Road, Linking Road, Vs. Mumbai- 400020. Khar (W.), Mumbai- 400052. PAN: AAAFN3167H Appellant : Respondent Present for: Assessee by : Shri Satish R. Mody Revenue by : Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, SR. A.R. Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal arises out of order dated 30.04.2024 passed by NFAC for assessment…

Indu Bala, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 60(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3869/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

…rt in the case of Mrs.Madhu Kaul v. CIT &Anr.[(2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H)]  Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain v CIT &Ors. [(2012) 344 ITR 501 (P&H)]  Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Services Limited [(1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom).]  Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan [(2019) 413 ITR 248 (Bom.)]  Hon’ble ITAT Bangalore, C Bench in the case of Sri Mahendrasingh Ramsingh Jadav Vs. ITO in ITA No. 32/Bang/2018 dated 16.03.2021 In the Above mentioned judgements it is held that assessee gets title of property on the basis of allo…

ITO, Lower Parel vs. Sohit Shravankumar Sadh, Lower Parel

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

ITA 3180/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Income Tax Officer Sohit Shravankumar Sadh Room No. 213, 3Rd Floor, A-2, Unit No. 79, Shah & Amp, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Nahar Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 012 S J Road, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…uire property’ in January, 2012 itself. The assessee contends that a right to acquire a property is a ‘capital asset’ as per the definition of section 2(14) of the Act and relied on the following decisions : 230 ITR 864 (Bom) Bafna Charitable Trust vs. CIT 122 ITR 594 (Bom) CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. 90 ITD 44 (Mum-Trib) ACIT vs. Smt. Hansaben B. Mehta 287 ITR 142 (Pune-ITAT) Smt. Nargis K. Irani vs. ITO 10. The ld. A.O. invoked section 56(2)(vii)(b) in his first draft assessment order dated 15.02.2021 and, subsequently invoked section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act in the second draft assessment order dated 05.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi vs. M/S Advantage Fashion Pvt. Ltd

ITA/517/2024HC Delhi14 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Section 153ASection 260A

…hus. the term ‘property’ is a word of widest import and it usually signifies every possible interest which a person can possibly hold and enjoy. ‘Property’ may be said to be a bundle of rights of all kinds to a person. In the case of CIT Vs Tata Services Ltd (122 ITR 594), the hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the word ‘property’ used in Sec 2(14) is a word of the widest amplitude and any right which can be called property will be included in the definition of capital asset. It held that since a contract for sale of land is capable of specific performance and is also assignable, a right to obtain conveyance…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi vs. M/S Advantage Fashion Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 517 / 2024HC Delhi14 Oct 2024

Section 153ASection 260A

…hus. the term ‘property’ is a word of widest import and it usually signifies every possible interest which a person can possibly hold and enjoy. ‘Property’ may be said to be a bundle of rights of all kinds to a person. In the case of CIT Vs Tata Services Ltd (122 ITR 594), the hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the word ‘property’ used in Sec 2(14) is a word of the widest amplitude and any right which can be called property will be included in the definition of capital asset. It held that since a contract for sale of land is capable of specific performance and is also assignable, a right to obtain conveyance…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhaskar Gopichand Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4733/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54ESection 80CSection 80D

…ghts and sold his rights in flat which was allotted to him, the receipt thereof is taxable under the head capital gains for which the A/R of the appellant has rightly relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594. Further the appellant is entitled to get reduction of brokerage and indexed cost of acquisition of the asset. Hence the grounds of appeal no. 3 to 9 are treated as allowed. 2.3.12 Vide grounds of appeal no. 11 the appellant has challenged the action of the AO of disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54EC. 2.3.13 The AO although has given a categ…

Neeru Mohan Nagpal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: MS. Pallavi Khuntenta, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…the same. Thus, it is seen that the cancellation of the agreement was at the request of the vender and not of the purchaser. Hence, the facts of this case are not similar to the present case in hand. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Tele Services Ltd. (122 ITR 594) relied upon by the appellant, the assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase a residential plot and had paid Rs.90,000/- as earnest money. The vender was under the obligation to obtain necessary permission from the Municipal Authorities for the sub-division of the plot. Due to certain disputes, the vender wished to cancel the agreement a…

DCIT, Cir, 4(2), Ahmedabad vs. Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 1965/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 54B

…. CWT (1970) 76 ITR 471 (SC). b) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vis. Vijay Flexible Containers (185 ITR 693 (Bombay). The above palgments have been re affirmed by the following judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts:- i) CIT Vis Tate Services Lid (122 ITR 594. Bombay) I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 6 DCIT Vs. Shri Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel ii) CIT Vis. Surat Laxmi Devi Ratnani 296 ITR (393 MP) iii) J.K. Kashyap VN. ACIT (302 ITR 255 Delhi) As mentioned above, in all these cases, it has been held that a tight created by agreement to sale is an enforceable right, therefore, it i…

DCIT, Cir.4(2), Ahmedabad vs. Lalitbhai Jayantibhai Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 1963/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 54B

…. CWT (1970) 76 ITR 471 (SC). b) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vis. Vijay Flexible Containers (185 ITR 693 (Bombay). The above palgments have been re affirmed by the following judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts:- i) CIT Vis Tate Services Lid (122 ITR 594. Bombay) I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 6 DCIT Vs. Shri Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel ii) CIT Vis. Surat Laxmi Devi Ratnani 296 ITR (393 MP) iii) J.K. Kashyap VN. ACIT (302 ITR 255 Delhi) As mentioned above, in all these cases, it has been held that a tight created by agreement to sale is an enforceable right, therefore, it i…

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd (Formerly Knwon As Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (As Ultimate Successor to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner of Limited (Formerly known Income Tax, as Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier known as Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, LBS Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 PAN: AAACN4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly known Circle-8(2)(1)…

Piramal Healthcare Ltd ( Earlier Knownas Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner of Limited (Formerly known Income Tax, as Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier known as Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, LBS Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 PAN: AAACN4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly known Circle-8(2)(1)…