“ Section 2(47)(v) ”

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

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.

260 ITR 491 · 2003 · High Court

150

CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.

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.

346 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court

129

365 ITR 389 · 2014 · Supreme Court

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

122

355 ITR 474 · 2013 · High Court

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

113

Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT

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).

269 ITR 1 · 2004 · High Court

108

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.

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.

98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court

104

Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT

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.

156 ITR 509 · 1985 · Supreme Court

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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)

Mr.Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R

Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

such possession shall not be construed as delivery of possession as contemplated u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act read with section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10.3 However, for certain obvious reasons the Appellant and his father delivered the vacant possession ... Appellate Authority are opposed to facts and law. 1. In support of this the Appellant relies on the following: (a) The provisions of Section 2(47)(v) which comes in to operation in the case of the Appellant on delivery physical possession on 16.6.2014 and hence the gains are assessable

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4876/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

year of 10 as the year of chargeability of income. chargeability of income. Under Section 2(47) (v),any transaction involving allowing of possession to be Under Section 2(47) (v),any transaction involving allowing of possession to be Under Section 2(47) (v),any transaction involving allowing of possession ... woul to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would core within the ambit of d core within the ambit of Section 2(47)(v). That, in order to attract Section 53A,the following conditions Section 2(47)(v). That, in order to attract Section 53A,the following

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4875/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 3773/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

Smt Munilakshamamma, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 880/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.T.Srinivas Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45Section 53A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Kay Foam Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -2, Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 598/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Assessment Year 2010-11 was reopened as the Assessing Officer was of the view that despite all the conditions of transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 being satisfies during the relevant previous year, the Appellant ... loans and advances given. Hence, assessee‟s contention that it is a loan is not correct. As all the conditions of transfer under section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 satisfies in this case

Shree Jalaram Builders & Dev., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1730/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Section 194Section 194ISection 194JSection 194LSection 234BSection 40

contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and accordingly it would constitute transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v).Therefore, the payment of compensation by the appellant in this case, will attract provisions of section 194-IA of the Income

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 22. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 20. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 20. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 20. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITA 3243/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

since for the purposes of those provisions, the agreements for sale are required to be registered for section 53-A to apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 20. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above

Shehroz Zakir Husain Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(3)(20, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late Sh. Shehrozzakir Husain Malik Income Tax Officer-26(3)(2), Through Legal Heir Shahbazshehroz Malik, Pratyakshakar, C-11, 1307, Rcs & Associates Mayuresh Cosmos Vs. Bandrakurla Complex, Tower, Sarovarvihar Road, Sector-11, Cbd Bandra East, Belapur, Mumbai-400051. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan No. Aagpm 4512 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neeraj Mangla, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Mangla, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 54

apartments before the sale deeds are executed and registered in their favour and hence there is no scope for invoking the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 45 of the Income tax Act 1961 and the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property

Sri Hanumanthiah, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 205/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

Before A.O., the assessee contended that the JDA entered by it would not result in any transfer of asset within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. The A.O., however, did not accept the contentions of the assessee. The AO, taking support of the decision rendered ... High Court in the case of CIT Vs. T.K. Dayalu (202 Taxman 531), held that there was transfer of property in terms of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, he computed long term capital gain of Rs.2.97 crores and assessed the same in the hands of the assessee

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)

ITA 296/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking section 2(47)(v) and issue pertaining to advance received by assessee was never a reason for reopening assessment, order of AO treating amount of advance as windfall ... v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; wherein it was held as under:- “In terms of section 2(47)(v), transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act will be completed only when

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

ITA 295/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)