← All Phrases

“Section 45(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 45Section 45(1)146 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 45(1) is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 45(1)

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)
315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills
296 ITR 238 · 2008 · High Court
180
citing judgments

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT
260 ITR 491 · 2003 · High Court
150
citing judgments

For capital gains purposes, a 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) occurs and capital gains arise in the year when possession of the property is handed over in part performance of a contract, such as a joint development agreement. This was the settled position before the specific provisions of section 45(5A) were introduced.

CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc.
49 Taxmann.com 257 · 2014 · High Court
145
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot exceed the actual tax-exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant year. If no tax-exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted.

Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT
35 ITR 594 · 1959 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

A transaction is considered an adventure in the nature of trade, constituting business income, if there is a pre-determination to sell an asset at a profit. Conduct prior to purchase, as well as subsequent improvements, are relevant in determining the character of the transaction.

S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta
83 ITR 700 · 1972 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
355 ITR 474 · 2013 · High Court
113
citing judgments

For capital assets acquired by gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 is computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset. The period of holding for determining if an asset is long-term also includes the previous owner's holding period, as per Section 2(42A).

Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT
53 ITR 151 · 1964 · Supreme Court
100
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation does not form part of the compensation itself but is taxable as 'income from other sources', analogous to interest under Section 34 of the Act.

Judgments citing Section 45(1)

Ganpatlal Agarwal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1125/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

REMAND REPORT” Suo – Motto. (4) Further it is a case of “CAPITAL GAIN” & “SALE AMOUNT” cannot be considered as capital gain; since section 45(1) of Income Tax Act’ 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under

Rajrani Singhal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

ITA 1124/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Rajrani Singhal, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

ITA 1123/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)\rFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)\r
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\r IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR\r डा० एस

Rajrani Singhal, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1122/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

REMAND REPORT” Suo – Motto. (4) Further it is a case of “CAPITAL GAIN” & “SALE AMOUNT” cannot be considered as capital gain; since section 45(1) of Income Tax Act’ 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under

Rajrani Singhal, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

ITA 1120/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Kannan Asha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1545/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1545/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Kannan Asha, The Ito, Old No.6, New No.15, Ncw-1(1), Veera Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Akrpa 9370 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144Section 45Section 45(1)

Accordingly, the sale proceeds of the land of Rs. 9,49,00,000/- attracts the provisions of section 45(1) of the Act in the hands of the appellant as well as the other three co- vendors. Further, I have no hesitation in holding that the sale consideration received

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

ITA 339/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

appeal to this Court. The relevant provisions of sub-section 14 of section 2 which defines "capital asset" and section 45(1) of the said Act which provides for the levy of tax on capital gains is as under: "2(14) "capital asset" means property of any kind held

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 338/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

appeal to this Court. The relevant provisions of sub-section 14 of section 2 which defines "capital asset" and section 45(1) of the said Act which provides for the levy of tax on capital gains is as under: "2(14) "capital asset" means property of any kind held

Shuvro Chattaraj, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

that the order of the Ld. PCIT may be confirmed. 16. We have examined the matter and also gone through the submissions made. Section 45(1) relating to capital gains is reproduced as under: 45. (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected

Nalapad Properties, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 1297/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, ITP &For Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 45

Dr.T.K.Dayalu v/s CIT 60 DTR 403 wherein the Hon'ble High court unambiguously held that the exigibility of capital gains tax as per section 45(1) arises in the same year of JDA and the consideration is required to be computed as per the SR value of the transferred land

Huntsman Investments (Netherlands), Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4222/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 234B

next year. But the shares were purchased in A.Y. 20-21 and sale was concluded in the impugned assessment year. So, section 45(1) of the Act is duly implemented for the year of transfer, the amount should be taken. Related to dividend income, the Ld.DR fully objected ... which also 19 ITA No.4222/Mum/2023 Huntsman Investments (Netherlands) BV stands assessed as per assessment order dated 27.02.2024 passed for the said year. Considering Section 45(1) of the Act let's quick look on the section. “Capital gains. 45.[(1)] Any profits or gains arising from the transfer

Ndtv Worldwide Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT 18(1), New Delhi

ITA 1180/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmandtv Worldwide Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-18(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccn9121G

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ms Tanya &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep K Mishra &
Section 1Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 3

accruing means the amount which is received or in respect of which the right to receive his accrued. Hence, charge created by section 45(1) gets triggered immediately on transfer of the capital asset and is relevant for the year in which the transfer took place. In the case

Rita Gupta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir.2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 2(14)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 47

exclusions which have been specifically defined in sub-clause (i) and (vi). The Ld. A.R further submitted that as per provision of section 45(1) any profits of gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall ,save as otherwise provided in Sections

Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

REMAND REPORT" Suo-Motto. (4) Further it is a case of "CAPITAL GAIN" & "SALE AMOUNT" cannot be considered as capital gain; since section 45(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 states "Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET" shall be chargeable to Income Tax under

Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

REMAND REPORT" Suo-Motto. (4) Further it is a case of "CAPITAL GAIN" & "SALE AMOUNT" cannot be considered as capital gain; since section 45(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 states "Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET" shall be chargeable to Income Tax under

Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 254/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (V.H.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

REMAND REPORT" Suo-Motto. (4) Further it is a case of "CAPITAL GAIN" & "SALE AMOUNT" cannot be considered as capital gain; since section 45(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 states "Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET" shall be chargeable to Income Tax under

ITO, Ward-35(7), New Delhi vs. Sumitra Devi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 906/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11 & Co. No. 173/Del/2022 Asstt. Year 2010-11 Ito, Ward-35(7), Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi, New Delhi. Plot No. 132/133, First Floor, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110 085. Pan Craps6145R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(1)Section 45(5)(b)

sale consideration of Rs. 3,21,75,000/- against the transaction for sale of said plot which is to be taxed under section 45(1) after allowing the expenses incurred by the assessee at the time of acquiring of the plot.” 3. The assessee has raised the following Cross Objection ... ground taken by the Revenue. 14. Regarding the additional ground taken before us suffice is to say that taxability of enhanced compensation under section 45(1) of the Act has neither been considered by the Ld. AO nor adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). Since the issue raised herein does

DCIT -26(1), Mumbai vs. Shreyas Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR)
Section 2(47)(v)

possession handed over to the transferee in part performance of the contract under section 53A of the TP Act, the provisions of section 45(1) of the Act, read with 2(47)(v) become applicable and transferor (land-owner) is liable to pay capital gains tax on the value

M R Apparels P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 198/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

clear that the right of leasehold property was physically transferred by the assessee in the name of M/s VTS IT Solutions LLP. The Section 45(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that' any profit or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER