Potla Nageswara Rao v. DCIT

365 ITR 249High Court2014#3378 most cited

What is Potla Nageswara Rao v. DCIT authority for?

Handing over possession of property under a Development Agreement-cum-GPA in exchange for built-up area constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, triggering capital gains tax, as it satisfies the conditions under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Potla Nageswara Rao v. DCIT · 365 ITR 249 · Section 2(47)(v) · Section 53A · Transfer of Property Act · joint development agreement · JDA · possession · built-up area · capital gains · transfer of capital asset

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53ajoint development agreementsection 53jdasection 2(47)compulsory acquisitiontransfer of capital assetmere change of opinionsection 269change of opinionfinal assessment order

Judgments citing Potla Nageswara Rao v. DCIT

T. Jaya Prakash (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1589/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-opening the assessment again on the same facts by another…

T. Kashinath (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1588/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-opening the assessment again on the same facts by another…

T. Ashok Kumar (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1587/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-opening the assessment again on the same facts by another…

T. Narsimha Rao (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1586/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-opening the assessment again on the same facts by another…

T. Narayana Rao (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1585/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-opening the assessment again on the same facts by another…

T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1583/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-opening the assessment again on the same facts by another…

T. Ramesh (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1584/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-opening the assessment again on the same facts by another…

M.S. Lakshmi Bai, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1679/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent…

R. Subba Laxmi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1600/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent…

Viswanatha Reddy Potham, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1599/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent…

Jillela Dasaratha Reddy, Rep by Gpa Holder, J Pedda Venkata Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1598/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent…

Khambhampati Jayalakshmi, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1587/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor possession was handed over and subsequent…

Rama Rao Gottumukkala, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1233/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…sfer of property by way of supplemental agreement, of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 10 -: terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor…

Kondal Rao Kurmyagari, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1232/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…sfer of property by way of supplemental agreement, of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 10 -: terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in was that consideration was not received but not on the incidence of capital gains. In this case, neither consideration was quantified nor…

Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/s. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1st Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [PAN: AAFFT3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"…