“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

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)

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

Sanjay Dutt, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1857/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1857/िद"ी/2022(िन.व. 2018-19) Sanjay Dutt, Bl Gupta & Co. 103 Ff, Caxton House, Khandewalan Extn., New Delhi 110055 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No: Aeqpd-5870-F बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi 110002

For Appellant: Ms. Manju Goel & Shri B.L Gupta, Chartered AccountantsFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

could not be considered as transfer u/s.2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since, provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act are not attracted on the facts of instant case, the question to tax capital gains in the impugned assessment year

Income Tax Officer-41(2)(4), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rbi Employees Bhagvati Coop Housing Society Ltd, Mulund East, Mumbai

ITA 4073/MUM/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

Assessing Officer as Short Term Capital Gain on account of transfer of development rights under a registered development agreement, despite clear applicability of Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... consideration. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that all conditions of Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 were satisfied, as the development agreement was registered, irrevocable and possession

Income Tax Officer-41(2)(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rbi Employees Bhagvati Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Mulund East, Mumbai

ITA 3595/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

Crystal Mercantiles Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 957/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 58A

Property according to the provisions of section 58A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and so also to attract the provisions of section 2(47)(v) / (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when no control over the possession of the Land was not given to the Developer ... which the assessee agreed to give possession of his portion of land. Thus, there was transfer of land as per section 2(47)(v) and (vi) of the Act but the assessee did not offer the long term capital gains on the same. The assessment was reopened and notice

Shardindu Prasad Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

question of capital gain as on the date of execution of development agreement does not arise. 8. Ld. AO has erred in invoking section 2(47)(v), 45 and 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and section 53A of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the facts ... limited right to construct the approved building at his own cost can never be akin to or equal to possession as envisaged in section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer also failed

Naveen Kumar Musinipally, Usa vs. ADIT (Int-Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly

ITA 323/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

above legal grounds, the Ld.CIT (A) and the Ld.AQ failed to appreciate that there was no "Transfer" within the meaning of section 2(47) (v) of the Act since the possession of the land on the date of development agreement still vests with the Assessee. Therefore erred in taxing ... agreement in the subject AY. ITA.No.323/Hyd./2024 5. Without prejudice to ground no.4, that there is no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act during the subject AY, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the value of the land

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Visakhapatnam

ITA 374/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.374/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aatpp2493B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: P. Murali & Co राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 07/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: P. Murali & CoFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

efficacy in law for purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, TPA, and, thus, cannot trigger Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini ... relied on Clause 17 of the JDA, which envisaged handing over of possession to the developer for commencing and completing construction, and invoked Section 2(47)(v) of the Act r.w. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("TPA"), and computed long-term capital gain

Hanmandlu Pampati, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.228/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2013-14) 1. Shri Srinivas Pampati, Karimnagar. Pan: Abopp0603R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar. आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.229/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2013-14) 2. Shri Hanmandlu Pampati, Karimnagar. Pan: Abmpp0324R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri Lalith Kishore Sharma, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: | Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख /Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : These Two Appeals Are Filed By Shri Srinivas Pampati & Shri Hanmandlu Pampati ("The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)"), Dated 04.12.2024 & 05.12.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessees Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kishore SharmaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 154Section 48Section 54F

been received by the assessee or the other landowners during the year under consideration from the developer. Therefore, the requirement of "transfer" under section 2(47)(v) of the Act was not satisfied. He also invited our attention to para no. 4.5.1 of the order of the Ld. AO, wherein ... under construction and had not been completed. In view of these facts, he argued that there was no “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act and, therefore, no capital gains could be brought to tax under section 45(1) of the Act in the impugned

Srinivas Pampati, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kishore SharmaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54F

been received by the assessee or the other landowners during the year under consideration from the developer. Therefore, the requirement of “transfer” under section 2(47)(v) of the Act was not satisfied. He also invited our attention to para no. 4.5.1 of the order of the Ld. AO, wherein ... under construction and had not been completed. In view of these facts, he argued that there was no “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act and, therefore, no capital gains could be brought to tax under section 45(1) of the Act in the impugned

Shree Sai Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4616/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

construction. Since no construction was completed and no possession handed over during the year, there was no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It was thus submitted that the addition of ₹6,04,16,000/- was premature

Saroj Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 242/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 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 Act in the opinion of the Ld. AO. Since the assessee had not filed any return of income

Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 2137/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Balusamy, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234Section 251Section 53A

property to Mr. Srinath Hebbar in terms of any registered agreement of sale entered into during the year and therefore, the provisions of section 2[47][v] of the Act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not attracted to the case of the appellant under ... behalf of the assessee. Further stated the transaction could not be treated as transfer under the Transfer of Property Act or under section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act. The assessee stated that only in cases where possession is given within the meaning of transfer under Transfer of Property

Ramaiah Pushpavathi, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 855/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT DR

Section 147Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 53ASection 68

case. 9. The learned Assessing Authority failed to appreciate that there is no transfer of capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act or section 53A of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 during the assessment year under appeal and hence there is no taxable

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

date, on which the assessee received the possession of the land, there is a transfer of the land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) and the assessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it. c. Since the assessee is owner of the building

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

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

view that the High Court was right in stating that in order to qualify as a "transfer" of a capital asset under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, there must be a "contract" which can be enforced in law under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property ... specified in Section 53A. The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression "of the nature referred to in Section 53A" in Section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive at the opposite conclusion. This expression was used by the legislature ever since sub-section (v) was inserted

Renu Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 672/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

being a substantive position cannot be applied to the Development Agreement entered before the insertion of this section and, therefore, automatically section 2(47)(v) gets attracted. The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) also held that section 45(5A) is a substantive provision, which was manifested by Hon’ble Hyderabad ITAT ... statutory permission are obtained and further Partition deed between builder and Landowner is signed. The Ld. CIT(A) misconstrued the provision of invoke section 2(47)(v) and (vi) as part performance as per section 53A of the transfer of property Act and treat mere signing of JDA as date