← All Phrases

“Section 2(47)(v)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(47)(v)187 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(47)(v) is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(47)(v)

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini
398 ITR 531 · 2017 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

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. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.
346 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
129
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for software license purchase, development of miscellaneous software, and maintenance of websites are considered revenue in nature. Such expenses are deductible in the year they are incurred.

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT
365 ITR 389 · 2014 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

For claiming capital gains exemption under beneficial provisions like section 54, the 'date of transfer' can be the date of the agreement to sell, particularly when coupled with substantial advance consideration or an enforceable right, adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation to acknowledge the assessee's intent.

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).

Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT
269 ITR 1 · 2004 · High Court
108
citing judgments

There can be no estoppel against the statute, meaning tax cannot be levied or collected without express authority of law. An appellate authority may adjudicate additional claims or legal contentions to ensure the correct tax liability is determined.

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.
98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court
104
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily reject a share valuation report prepared by an expert using recognized methods like NAV or DCF for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) without providing valid reasons to demonstrate its perversity or unreasonableness.

Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT
156 ITR 509 · 1985 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

A partner's contribution of a personal asset to a partnership firm does not amount to a "transfer" for capital gains purposes under the Income-tax Act, as the consideration (the partner's interest in the firm) is indeterminate, and the computational machinery for capital gains fails.

Judgments citing Section 2(47)(v)

Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(2), Bangalore

ITA 2193/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain VP, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 250

executed, but whether there was a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. The AO opined that under section 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer includes any transaction which allows possession of immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract

Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(2), Bengaluru

ITA 2192/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain VP, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 250

executed, but whether there was a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. The AO opined that under section 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer includes any transaction which allows possession of immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract

Vinod Yadav, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (3), Patna

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

ITA 398/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(ii)Section 50CSection 53A

Considering all these facts, we are of the view that no transfer of any property had taken place within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and therefore, accordingly, no capital gain has Page |4 ITA No. 398/PAT/2025 Vinod Yadav; A.Y. 2014-15 arisen to be taxed ... Haryana High Court on the issue of transfer of land between the landlord and the developer with reference to Section 53A read with section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Similarly, the co-ordinate bench in case of Fardeen Khan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-11 (1), Mumbai

Hari Narayan Gupta (HUF), Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (5), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. Rastogi &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 133Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 50CSection 53A

Book. Considering all these facts, we are of the view that no transfer of any property had taken place within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and therefore, accordingly, no capital gain has arisen to be taxed u/s 45 and 48 of the Act. We further ... Haryana High Court on the issue of transfer of land between the landlord and the developer with reference to Section 53A read with section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Similarly, the co-ordinate bench in case of Fardeen Khan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-11 (1), Mumbai

Late Rama Kumari Munna Represented by Shri Shivayya Munna Husband Legal Heir, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

ITA 541/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250

lower authorities have erred in holding that the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 18.03.2016 constituted a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the following: (i) That the JDA did not effectuate any identifiable transfer of property, inasmuch

Cherie Tandon Saldahna, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Mumbai

ITA 6576/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)

were raised before the Hon'ble High Court:- "(i) Whether the transactions in hand envisage a "transfer" exigible to tax by reference to section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? (ii) Whether the Income ... ignored rights emanating from the JDA, legal effect of non registration of JDA, its alleged repudiation etc.? (iii) Whether "possession" as envisaged by section 2(47)(v) and section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 was delivered, and if so, its nature and legal effect? (iv) Whether

Shatrughan K. Patil, Thakurli vs. Asst.Comm.Income Tax Officer Central Circle 2, Thane

ITA 964/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jhaveri and Shri Dharmil Jhaveri, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(47)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Narottam Atmaram Warde, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

However, in para 5.1, Assessing Officer states that there was a development agreement entered into by Assessee and hence, Assessing Officer has invoked Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. ITA No.3139/PUN/2025 [A] 8. We have perused the agreement referred by Assessing Officer. Ld.AR has filed copy of the said

Zarir Rustom Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 17(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 6455/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Mr. Zarir Rustom Joshi, Income Tax Officer, 26, Heera Meher, 108, Ward -17(3)(5) Room No.116, 1St Floor, Wood House Road, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai – 400 005 Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aahpj9575G (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 53ASection 54E

have erred in holding that the execution of development agreement on 08.03.2000 does not amount to transfer as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") since the pre-requisites of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are not fulfilled

Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1619/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sahodhar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Muddasani Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aelpm9122N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Shri C Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.09.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Shri C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 53A

that possession, if any, was handed over only for the limited purpose of development and not in the nature of possession contemplated under section 2(47)(v) of the Act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Ld. AR submitted that reliance placed ... developer which amounted Page 4 of 9 ITA No 1619 of 2025 Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee is liable

Laljibhai Parshottambhai Gaudani, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahemdabad

ITA 1238/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 27(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(5)Section 53A

regard to Definition of Transfer under 2(47): The Learned AO erred in passing the order without considering the definition of transfer’ under Section 2(47)(v), which covers transactions under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The order disregarded relevant facts, explanations, and supporting documentary evidence. Hence

Raj Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 341/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250

case attracted provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the capital gains arising out of such transfer attracted provisions of sections 2(47)(v), 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the assessee had not filed any return of income, the proceeding under section

Lalchand Narayan Bhakt, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 2, Jalna

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

ITA 93/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)(v)

advance. 4. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He referred to the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the 3 Act and observed that there was a part performance of transfer of capital assets as the said land is located within ... Tribunal in the case of Hussain Lal Puri vs. ITO wherein it has been held that it is not necessary in terms of section 2(47)(v) of the Act that 4 the developer should have exclusive possession. The concurrent possession of the ownership is possible which gives rights

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Manohar Reddy Cheruku, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1625/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1625/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Manohar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Cheruku, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aelpc8785R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 53A

handed over only for the limited purpose of facilitating the developer to undertake construction, and not in the nature of possession contemplated under section 2(47)(v) of the Act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the reliance placed ... supported the view that the signing of JDA itself constitutes transfer as per section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material available on record

Amit Kumar Verma, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6(1), Patna

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

ITA 357/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

attracted provisions under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and the capital gains emerging out of such transfer attracted provisions of section 2(47)(v), 45 and 48 of the Act. Therefore, the taxable capital gain and taxes to be paid thereon was worked out in details ... taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [Section 2(47)(v)); 2. or b. any transaction …… which has the effect of transferring or enabling enjoyment of any immovable property [Section 2(47

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

only advances and did not represent income accruing or arising during the year. He held that no transfer of property, as contemplated under section 2(47)(v) or 2(47)(vi), had taken place in the relevant assessment year. 5. An important finding recorded

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

only advances and did not represent income accruing or arising during the year. He held that no transfer of property, as contemplated under section 2(47)(v) or 2(47)(vi), had taken place in the relevant assessment year. 5. An important finding recorded

Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Mathikere vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

only advances and did not represent income accruing or arising during the year. He held that no transfer of property, as contemplated under section 2(47)(v) or 2(47)(vi), had taken place in the relevant assessment year. 5. An important finding recorded

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

only advances and did not represent income accruing or arising during the year. He held that no transfer of property, as contemplated under section 2(47)(v) or 2(47)(vi), had taken place in the relevant assessment year. 5. An important finding recorded