Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (

411 ITR 533High Court2019#9059 most cited

What is Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT ( authority for?

A joint development agreement may not result in a transfer of property until possession is passed, meaning capital gains may not arise at the time of the agreement. Consideration received for a joint development project might be a license fee rather than purchase consideration, depending on the agreement's terms.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Seshasayee Steels · CIT · 411 ITR 533 · Joint Development Agreement · JDA · Transfer of Property · Capital Gains Tax · Possession · License Fee · Agreement to Sell

Sections most often in play

Section 1908Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 17 of Indian Registration ActSection 17(1A) of Indian Registration ActSection 1882

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 2(47)(v)section 96section 45(2)section 53section 2(14)(iii)jdasection 2(47)right to receivesection 53aclarificatory amendment

Judgments citing Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (

Devi Dayal, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…ann.com 359 P&H HC 5. CIT VS. Balbir Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 Supreme Court 6. CIT vs Atam Prakash Sons 219 CTR 164 Delhi HC 7. K. Radhika vs DCIT 149 TTJ 736 Hyderabad ITAT 8. K.V. Satish Babu [HUF] vs. ITO 37 NYPTTJ 802 Bangalore ITAT 9. PCIT vs Fardeen Khan 411 ITR 533 Bombay HC 10. R. Gopinath (HUF) vs. ACIT 133 TTJ 595 Chennai ITAT 11. Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT 57 ITR 185 SC 12. Abdul Rashid vs Bidhan De Sarkar & Anr GA No. 2 of 2024 Calcutta HC 9. On the strength of Agreement, it was contended that it was a joint development Project. No independent rights have A.Y.2008-09 9 been granted to the other sid…

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

…he ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition: a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 29. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 30. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal, in the case of D. Dasappa v. DCIT in ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 date…

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

…he ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition: a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 29. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 30. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal, in the case of D. Dasappa v. DCIT in ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 date…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…8 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 25. The ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 26. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal, in the case of D. Dasappa v. DCIT in ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 dated 9.2.2022 wherein…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…8 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 25. The ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 26. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal, in the case of D. Dasappa v. DCIT in ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 dated 9.2.2022 wherein…

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…8 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 25. The ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 26. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal, in the case of D. Dasappa v. DCIT in ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 dated 9.2.2022 wherein…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…8 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 25. The ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 26. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal, in the case of D. Dasappa v. DCIT in ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 dated 9.2.2022 wherein…

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 153A

…would be section 2(4 7)(il) and (VI) in the facts of the instant case. [Para 21] This being the case, this appeal is dismissed but for the reasons stated by this judgment. [Para 22] ITA No.295, 296 & 297/Bang/2020 Page 23 of 27 c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; wherein it was held as under:- “In terms of section 2(47)(v), transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act will be completed only when the agreement under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is registered under the Indian Registrati…

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 296/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 153A

…would be section 2(4 7)(il) and (VI) in the facts of the instant case. [Para 21] This being the case, this appeal is dismissed but for the reasons stated by this judgment. [Para 22] ITA No.295, 296 & 297/Bang/2020 Page 23 of 27 c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; wherein it was held as under:- “In terms of section 2(47)(v), transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act will be completed only when the agreement under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is registered under the Indian Registrati…

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 295/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 153A

…would be section 2(4 7)(il) and (VI) in the facts of the instant case. [Para 21] This being the case, this appeal is dismissed but for the reasons stated by this judgment. [Para 22] ITA No.295, 296 & 297/Bang/2020 Page 23 of 27 c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; wherein it was held as under:- “In terms of section 2(47)(v), transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act will be completed only when the agreement under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is registered under the Indian Registrati…

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

…ning 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. D.R relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 25. We have heard the authorized representatives for…

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

…ning 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. D.R relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 25. We have heard the authorized representatives for…

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT ( (411 ITR 533) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax