Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

421 ITR 46Supreme Court of India2020#3595 most cited

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

Handing over possession under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Seshasayee Steels · 421 ITR 46 · Supreme Court · Joint Development Agreement · JDA · possession · transfer · Section 2(47)(v) · Section 53A · Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 148Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 53section 96section 53ajdasection 45(2)section 2(47)joint development agreementsection 2(14)(iii)right to receive

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

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA/637/2016HC Karnataka05 Feb 2026

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 260Section 53A

…- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7442-DB ITA No. 637 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 637 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI N. G. CHANDRA REDDY (HUF), REP. BY ITS KARTA, SHRI N.G.CHANDRA REDDY, #222/222, ASHIRVAD, DODDANEKKUNDI, BANGALORE-560 037. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KOR…

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

…this proposition, he took us through the alleged Collaboration Agreements as well as the following judgements : 1. CIT Vs Najoo Dara Deboo 218 taxman 473 Allahabad HC 2. Aarti Sanjay Kadam vs ITO 172 ITD 362 Mumbai ITAT 3. Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 421 ITR 46 Supreme Court 4. C.S. Atwal vs. CIT 59 taxmann.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…

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 218/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…ng Officer. The learned AR has further contended that even otherwise, the view taken by the Pr. CIT is contrary to the binding precedents. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following decisions: i) Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2020) 421 ITR 46 (Supreme Court) ii) Dy.CIT vs. Bharat Jasyantilal Patel (2023) 462 ITR 455 (Supreme Court) iii) Darshana Anand Damle vs. Dy.CIT (2023) 459 ITR 60 (Bom.) 7. Thus, the learned AR submitted that in all those judgements, it has been held that handing over of the possession under the JDA does not constitute transfer u/s 53A on transfer of property Act…

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 217/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…ng Officer. The learned AR has further contended that even otherwise, the view taken by the Pr. CIT is contrary to the binding precedents. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following decisions: i) Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2020) 421 ITR 46 (Supreme Court) ii) Dy.CIT vs. Bharat Jasyantilal Patel (2023) 462 ITR 455 (Supreme Court) iii) Darshana Anand Damle vs. Dy.CIT (2023) 459 ITR 60 (Bom.) 7. Thus, the learned AR submitted that in all those judgements, it has been held that handing over of the possession under the JDA does not constitute transfer u/s 53A on transfer of property Act…

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…ng Officer. The learned AR has further contended that even otherwise, the view taken by the Pr. CIT is contrary to the binding precedents. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following decisions: i) Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2020) 421 ITR 46 (Supreme Court) ii) Dy.CIT vs. Bharat Jasyantilal Patel (2023) 462 ITR 455 (Supreme Court) iii) Darshana Anand Damle vs. Dy.CIT (2023) 459 ITR 60 (Bom.) 7. Thus, the learned AR submitted that in all those judgements, it has been held that handing over of the possession under the JDA does not constitute transfer u/s 53A on transfer of property Act…

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…ng Officer. The learned AR has further contended that even otherwise, the view taken by the Pr. CIT is contrary to the binding precedents. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following decisions: i) Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2020) 421 ITR 46 (Supreme Court) ii) Dy.CIT vs. Bharat Jasyantilal Patel (2023) 462 ITR 455 (Supreme Court) iii) Darshana Anand Damle vs. Dy.CIT (2023) 459 ITR 60 (Bom.) 7. Thus, the learned AR submitted that in all those judgements, it has been held that handing over of the possession under the JDA does not constitute transfer u/s 53A on transfer of property Act…

VENKAT RAJASEKHAR KONERU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 627/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No Assessment Appellant / Assessee Respondent No Year 1 610/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Shri Bandi Sudheer Assistant Commissioner of Reddy, Income Tax, Central Circle Hyderabad. – 1(4), Hyderabad. PAN : BYNPB7159M 2 611/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Shri Pramod Reddy Assistant Commissioner of Tekula, Income Tax, Central Circle Hyderabad. – 1(1), Hyderabad. PAN : AKDPT7293H 3 627/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Shri Venkata -do- Rajasekhar…

PRAMOD REDDY TEKULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 611/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No Assessment Appellant / Assessee Respondent No Year 1 610/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Shri Bandi Sudheer Assistant Commissioner of Reddy, Income Tax, Central Circle Hyderabad. – 1(4), Hyderabad. PAN : BYNPB7159M 2 611/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Shri Pramod Reddy Assistant Commissioner of Tekula, Income Tax, Central Circle Hyderabad. – 1(1), Hyderabad. PAN : AKDPT7293H 3 627/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Shri Venkata -do- Rajasekhar…

BANDI SUDHEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 610/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No Assessment Appellant / Assessee Respondent No Year 1 610/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Shri Bandi Sudheer Assistant Commissioner of Reddy, Income Tax, Central Circle Hyderabad. – 1(4), Hyderabad. PAN : BYNPB7159M 2 611/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Shri Pramod Reddy Assistant Commissioner of Tekula, Income Tax, Central Circle Hyderabad. – 1(1), Hyderabad. PAN : AKDPT7293H 3 627/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Shri Venkata -do- Rajasekhar…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

…n in terms of this provision, cost of construction would not be the appropriate method to arrive at the full market value of consideration. & CO 2/Bang/2022 Page 25 of 27 16. In Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 5/275 Taxman 187/421 ITR 46 (SC) while considering the provision of section 53 of the TP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income-tax Act, it has been held thus: "11. In order that the provisions of section 53A of the T.P. Act be attracted, first and foremost, the transferee must, in part performance of the contract, have taken possession of the property or any p…

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2791/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 269USection 41(1)Section 53A

…turbed all along. Faced with this situation, we hold that the lower authorities have rightly assessed the assessee for having transferred the capital asset in issue on 11-09-2012. The assessee’s reliance on M/s. Sheshasayee Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 421 ITR 46(SC) stands distinguished once the development agreement herein has remained the same regarding transfer of the asset u/s.2(47) r.w.s. 53A of the Act. We 17 for A.Y. 2013-14 Mangilal L. Chowdhary uphold the impugned long term capital gains addition amounting to Rs.49.22 lakh. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer’s conse…

MR. MAHESH D. SAINI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-35(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1929/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1929/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Mr. Mahesh D. Saini बिधम/ Ito, Ward-35(2)(3) 203, Lukhi Niwas Kailash Room No. 745, 7Th Floor, Vs. Puri, Upper Govind Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Plot No. 135, Malad (E), C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai-400097. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1048M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh B. Shah Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai Dated 28.02.2020 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,05,37,002/- As Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Treating The Purported Capital Asset As Transfer In View Of The Provisions Of Section 2(47) (V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) R.W. Section 53A Of The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (4 Of 1882) (Hereinafter In Short As “Topa”). 3. Brief Facts Of The Case As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A) Is That The Ao Noticed That During The Year, The Assessee Jointly With His Two (2) Brothers, Viz Shri Formal Dedrajmali Alias Sainik/Siani & Shri Kailash Dedraj Mali Alias Sainik/Saini, Entered Into Sale Cum

For Appellant: Shri Haresh B. ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr
Section 2(47)Section 50CSection 53A

…rs, are satisfied that the provisions of Section 53A of the TOPA can be said to be attracted on the facts of a given case and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seshasayee Steels Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 9209 of 2019 (2020) 421 ITR 46 (SC). 11. Having perused the sale-cum-developments agreement dated 20.10.2010 it is noted that as per the terms of the ibid agreement, the assessee shall hand over physical possession of the property to the purchaser cum developer after the purchaser cum developer obtain IOD (i.e. Intimation of Disapproval) from the competent authority for the pur…

M/S NOORANI PROPERTIES (P) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

Appeals are allowed

WTA/11/2016HC Karnataka30 Jun 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

Section 27

…ated. As per Section 2(ea), 'urban land' falls within the definition of 'assets'. It is not in dispute that the appellants own urbun land and they are assessable for Wealth tax. 15 [2020] 421 ITR 46 (para nos. 11,13,14 and 17) W.T.A No.11 OF 2016 C/W W.T.A NO.9 OF 2016 W.T.A NO.10 OF 2016 13 13. Appellan…

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 above principles are squarely covered by the 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…

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 above principles are squarely covered by the 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…

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)

…he ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 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…

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)

…he ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 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…

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)

…he ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 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…

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)

…he ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 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…

SRI HANUMANTHIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

ITA 205/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…)(v) of the Act, as per the decision of Hon’ble Bangalore bench rendered in the case of Anugraha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.2314/Bang/2016 dated 22.11.2011). The Ld. A.R. also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seshasayee Steels Pvt. Ltd.(421 ITR 46) has also expressed the following view, which supports the view taken by the Tribunal:- “Clause 16 is crucial, and the expression used in clause 16 is that the party of the first part hereby gives “permission” to the party of the second part to start construction on the land. Clause 16 would, therefore, led to the position that a license was give…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46) — Cited in 33 Judgments | BharatTax