Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

421 ITR 46Supreme Court of India2020#3590 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 366,314 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
Read the full judgment

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

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Nancy Divaker Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 853/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45Section 53A

…tax in A.Y.2015-16. It escapement of income at all as projected at the Revenue’s behest once the very capital gains had been declared in the latter assessment year in above terms. Mr. Bhanu Narayan has also quoted M/s. Seshasayee Steel (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2020) 421 ITR 46 (SC) that the assessee’s latter agreement only amounts to transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions and find no reason to express our concurrence with the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion supported at the assessee’s behest. Suffice to say, the assessee had entered into a development agreement…

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Nancy Divaker Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, Secunderabad

ITA 852/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45Section 53A

…tax in A.Y.2015-16. It escapement of income at all as projected at the Revenue’s behest once the very capital gains had been declared in the latter assessment year in above terms. Mr. Bhanu Narayan has also quoted M/s. Seshasayee Steel (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2020) 421 ITR 46 (SC) that the assessee’s latter agreement only amounts to transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions and find no reason to express our concurrence with the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion supported at the assessee’s behest. Suffice to say, the assessee had entered into a development agreement…

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

…was not cancelled, AO could not have treated advance received by assessee from developer as windfall gain to be brought to tax under head 'Income from other sources' - Held, yes [Paras 7 and 8][ln favour of assessee].” b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; wherein it was held as under:- “In order that the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act be attracted, first and foremost, the transferee must, in part performance of the contract, have taken possession of the property or any part thereof. Secondly, the transferee must have performed or be willing to perform his part of t…

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

…was not cancelled, AO could not have treated advance received by assessee from developer as windfall gain to be brought to tax under head 'Income from other sources' - Held, yes [Paras 7 and 8][ln favour of assessee].” b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; wherein it was held as under:- “In order that the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act be attracted, first and foremost, the transferee must, in part performance of the contract, have taken possession of the property or any part thereof. Secondly, the transferee must have performed or be willing to perform his part of t…

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

…was not cancelled, AO could not have treated advance received by assessee from developer as windfall gain to be brought to tax under head 'Income from other sources' - Held, yes [Paras 7 and 8][ln favour of assessee].” b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; wherein it was held as under:- “In order that the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act be attracted, first and foremost, the transferee must, in part performance of the contract, have taken possession of the property or any part thereof. Secondly, the transferee must have performed or be willing to perform his part of t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. N G Balu Reddy HUF, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…not complied with, as there is no development activity in the said property in the assessment year 2005-06. At this point it is pertinent to take support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seshayee Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT reported in 421 ITR 46, wherein it was held mere giving licence to the developer could not be said to be ‘possession’ within the meaning of sec. 53A of TP Act 1882 and the developer has to get the control over the land and not actual physical occupation of land. 30. The ld. AR submitted that the facts of the case in the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in t…

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 45Section 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2007-08 M/s. Jaico Automobile Engineering Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Company Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, 9/10, II Stage, D.K. Industrial Area, Circle 11(5), Mahadevapura, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 048. PAN: AAACJ 5640E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 08.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountan…

V.S. Chandrashekar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

ITA/70/2015HC Karnataka02 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 50C

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.70 OF 2015 BETWEEN: V.S.CHANDRASHEKAR PROP: M/S MADHURA DEVELOPERS #46, 9TH CROSS 28TH MAIN 1ST PHASE JP NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.,) AND: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1) 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE P.KALINGA RAO ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC…

Smt. G. Saraswathi, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assesseee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/BANG/2017[2010 - 11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010 – 11 Smt. G. Saraswathi, #997, Anjanadri, 29Th Main, Ito Ward – 7 (2) (2), Poornapragna Layout, Bsk 6Th Stage, Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru - 560061 Pan : Aqgps8320R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Manjeet Singh, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A) – 7 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds. Ground No. 1 Is General & In Ground No. 2, 2.1 & 2.2, The Grievance Raised Is About Validity Of Reopening But In Course Of Hearing, Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That These Grounds Are Not Pressed & Accordingly, These Grounds Are Rejected As Not Pressed. Learned Ar Of The Assessee Also Submitted That As Per The Remaining Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shree V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT DR
Section 53ASection 54F

…d CIT (A) has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Dr. T. K. Dayalu as reported in 202 Taxmann 531 but as per a later judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Seshasayee Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 421 ITR 46, it was held by Hon’ble apex court that mere agreement to sell and giving licence to the developer to enter in the land for construction could not be said to be possession within the meaning of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which is a legal concept and denotes control over the land and not actual physical occupation of the land…

Official Liquidator

Appeals are allowed

OLR/11/2016HC Karnataka26 Aug 2016

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

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…

Official Liquidator

Appeals are allowed

OLR/10/2016HC Karnataka26 Aug 2016

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

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…

Official Liquidator

Appeals are allowed

OLR/9/2016HC Karnataka25 Aug 2016

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

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…

Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S Spa Computers Pvt Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/10/2016HC Karnataka16 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

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…