← 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)

Vishal Aggarwal, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

ITA 803/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 803/Del/2022, A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 17Section 2(47)(v)Section 263Section 53A

written agreement and handing over of the possession have to be cumulatively satisfied in order to bring the case within the ambit of section 2(47)(v), read with section 53A of the 1882 Act. Only one of the conditions is satisfied in the instant case - only written agreement ... Therefore, in view of the above facts and the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) are not applicable to the said transaction of Rs. 60,00,000/, as embodied in the so-called Agreement to sell dated

Yadla Srinivasa Rao, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 78/VIZ/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.78/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Yadla Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.20-04-190/7A Ward-3(2) Basavataraka Nagar Vijayawada Ayodhya Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Abfpy5447F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.Madhusudan, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C

3169/2007, dated 04.04.2007, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not have held that there is a DEEMED TRANSFER within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act, 1961 and in the context of WELL SETTLED LAW, the impugned assessment order dated 22.11.2018 may be NONEST IN LAW AND HENCE

Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5338/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 251Section 254Section 2BSection 54BSection 56

March 2010, the possession of land was transferred to the assessee. We have filed all the supportive documents wide letter dated 17.05.2017 b. Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act defines the transfer of capital asset as under "2(47) 5 transfer", in relation to a capital asset ... contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 1 (4 of 1882), or As per section 2(47) (v)(supra). The immovable property is said to be transferred when possession of immovable property has been transferred to the assessee in part performance

Pulikkaparambil George Jacob, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 558/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial

Shri Vinod Choudhary, Indore vs. ITO1 3), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

that case were entirely different from the facts of the assessee. (d) That with a preset mind the AO had wrongly interpreted section 2(47)(v) just to deny the exemption claimed u/s 54F & 54B. The A.O had failed to appreciate that the transaction of the assessee not only falls ... factual aspect is totally different. The Ld. A.R. in rejoinder further submitted that as regards alternate argument the Assessing Officer had wrongly interpreted Section 2(47)(v) only to deny the exemption claimed under Section 54F & 54B. The Ld. A.R. submitted that Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the transaction

Shri Hukumchand Choudhary, Indore vs. ITO (3), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

facts of the assessee. Hukumchand Choudhary vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2 – (d) That with a present mind the AO had wrongly interpreted section 2(47)(v) just to deny the exemption claimed u/ 54F & 54B. The A.O had failed to appreciate that the transaction of the assessee not only ... factual aspect is totally different. The Ld. A.R. in rejoinder further submitted that as regards alternate argument the Assessing Officer had wrongly interpreted Section 2(47)(v) only to deny the exemption claimed under Section 54F & 54B. The Ld. A.R. submitted that Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the transaction

Virender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 131

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA

Prerak Goel, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -19, Mumbai

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

ITA 787/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 263Section 53ASection 54F

view that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property would not apply in the absence registration of Conveyance Deed for the purpose of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, he took a view that the assessee would not be entitled for deduction u/s.54F of the Act. Accordingly ... taken as evidence of any transaction affection such property and thus for the transfer of his mother's share of property as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act it would not be apply unless the property is registered as per Section 53A of the Transfer

Madhu Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 395/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

which the buyer is allowed to take possession of the property in part performance of the contract for transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961. He noted that as per the document i.e., documents 1705/15 and 1706/15 are concerned, these were Page ... which the buyer was allowed to take possession of the property in part performance of the contract for transfer, within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The buyer also paid entire consideration and the receipt of the same has been admitted by the vendor

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

shall be construed as the grant of possession in part performance of an agreement under the Transfer of Property Act 1882 or under section 2(47)(v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 7.8 As per this clause, permission given under this development agreement cannot be considered ... delivery of possession in part performance of an agreement under TP Act, 1882 or under section 2(47)(v)&(vi) of the Act. 7.9 At this stage, it is appropriate to consider few judgements on this issue of transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. 7.10 Hon’ble Bombay

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

shall be construed as the grant of possession in part performance of an agreement under the Transfer of Property Act 1882 or under section 2(47)(v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 7.8 As per this clause, permission given under this development agreement cannot be considered ... delivery of possession in part performance of an agreement under TP Act, 1882 or under section 2(47)(v)&(vi) of the Act. 7.9 At this stage, it is appropriate to consider few judgements on this issue of transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. 7.10 Hon’ble Bombay

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

shall be construed as the grant of possession in part performance of an agreement under the Transfer of Property Act 1882 or under section 2(47)(v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 7.8 As per this clause, permission given under this development agreement cannot be considered ... delivery of possession in part performance of an agreement under TP Act, 1882 or under section 2(47)(v)&(vi) of the Act. 7.9 At this stage, it is appropriate to consider few judgements on this issue of transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. 7.10 Hon’ble Bombay

Smt. Geeta Tarlok Singh Lamba, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 4610/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45Section 45(1)

disputing its authenticity being not in acceptable confirmation, proceeded to invoke the provisions contained under section 45(1) read with section 2(47)(v) of the Act made an addition of Rs.11,18,234/- on account of long term capital 3 Smt. Geeta Tarlok Singh Lamba gain and thereby framed ... returned by the AO making addition of Rs.11,18,234/- on account of long term capital gain by invoking the provisions contained under section 2(47)(v) read with section 45(1) by returning following findings: “7.1.1 I have perused the assessment order and considered the submissions of the appellant

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

Karnataka High Court in the T.K. Dayalu decision. The Chaturbhuj decision lists out 6 conditions for satisfaction of Part Performance as per Section 2(47)(v) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The conditions specified in the said case law and their ... specific clause that the permission to enter cannot be construed as delivery of possession u/.53A of the Transfer of Property Act read with section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. However in assessee’s case there is no mention in the JDA to this effect

Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 887/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsmt. Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Flat No. 204, Grant Canyon, Opp. Hdfc Bank, Pali Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan: Acxpc0971B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-23(1)(5), Room No. 114, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 2(47)Section 54

effect to the provisions of sec 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Whereas the transaction of the assessee falls in a specific section 2(47)(v), which is in nowhere contradicts sec 2(47)(v) rather both the sections are in harmony to each other. We have gone through

Shri Ganadhiraj Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) -40, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5351/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 80P

learned CIT(A) vide impugned order upheld the assessment order, by observing as under: ―6.4 Thus, the main conditions for transfer as per section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of the transfer of property Act, which are contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property and taking over ... view of the above it cannot be said that the transfer of property has taken place before 20.5.2009 on account of provisions of section 2(47)(v). As discussed above, the "agreement for development of vacant plot" was entered into on 20.5.2009 and the same has been registered

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 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

documents together, the assessing authority held that the transfer was complete during the relevant year by virtue of the provisions of 111r111111111N11111100111111MEremil Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and accordingly the capital gains was required to be assessed to tax in the relevant year. The assessing authority declined ... accept the explanation of the assessee that the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act had no application since M/s. IDEB was not put in possession of the property in question before the end of the financial year relevant to the assessment year. Consequently, the long-term capital

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.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 ... assessee to the developer on execution of the agreement dated 20.10.2010, the transfer of property have taken place in view of the Section 2(47) (v) of the Act r.w. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) (referred hereinafter in short

Shri. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

assessment in spite of repeated request by the Appellant. (9) The Respondent erred in holding that there was "transfer" within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is clearly un- sustainable in law. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore Page 3 of 33 (10) Without ... that the permissive possession of land was given to the developer only in October, 2013. The A.O. treated the transfer in terms of section 2(47)(v) of the Act and computed the short term capital gain arising out of JDA. Further, during the survey, the assessee was asked

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 383/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravi shankar
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

date on which the developer took possession of the property, the transfer of the asset as defined under the provisions of section 2(47)(v)of the Act r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act took place on that date and hence the capital gains arising from ... Transfer of Property Act, are not applicable to the impugned Joint Development Agreement. Based on the above facts, the conditions laid down in section 2(47)(v) of the Act, cannot be invoked, so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2012- 2013 as argued