Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM)

294 ITR 196Reported decision2007#3801 most cited

What is Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM) authority for?

A transaction involving the transfer of property, even if not a sale in the conventional sense, can fall under the definition of 'transaction' as contemplated in Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. This includes situations where consideration is received in the form of built-up area under a development agreement.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Rubab M Kazerani v JCIT · Jasbir Singh Sarkaria · Section 2(47)(v) · transaction · development agreement · capital gains · consideration · built-up area · transfer of property

Judgments citing Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM)

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

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(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-op…

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

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(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-op…

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

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(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-op…

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

…reement, whereas in this case, the agreements were genuine development agreements and there is no passing of control over the property to the developer so as to invoke the Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/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. D…

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

…reement, whereas in this case, the agreements were genuine development agreements and there is no passing of control over the property to the developer so as to invoke the Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/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. D…

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

…reement, whereas in this case, the agreements were genuine development agreements and there is no passing of control over the property to the developer so as to invoke the Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/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. D…

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

…reement, whereas in this case, the agreements were genuine development agreements and there is no passing of control over the property to the developer so as to invoke the Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/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. D…

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

…reement, whereas in this case, the agreements were genuine development agreements and there is no passing of control over the property to the developer so as to invoke the Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/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. D…

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

…reement, whereas in this case, the agreements were genuine development agreements and there is no passing of control over the property to the developer so as to invoke the Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer 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…

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

…reement, whereas in this case, the agreements were genuine development agreements and there is no passing of control over the property to the developer so as to invoke the Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer 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…

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)

…lu [2011] 202 Taxman 531/14 taxmann.com 120 (Kar.), Dr. Maya Shenoy v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 124 TTJ (Hyd) 692, Madras High Court in CIT v. Jeelani Basha [2002] 256 ITR 282/122 Taxman 509(Mad) & Authority for Advance Rulings in Jasbir Singh Sarkaria, In Re [2007] 294 ITR 196/164 Taxman 108 (AAR). All these decisions have observed and held that where possession is handed over to the 48 I.T.A. No.744/Chny/17 developer under the development agreement-cum-GPA capital gains tax is chargeable in the year in which such transfer takes place and possession is handed over to the developer. The fact that payment of considerati…