← All Phrases

“Section 2(47)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(47)(ii)25 judgments

VINOD YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA

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

ITA 398/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(ii)Section 50CSection 53A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA\nBEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP\nAND\nSHRI RAJESH

YERRAGUDI VENKATA SIVA REDDY,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

ITA 1294/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1294/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Yerragudi Venkata Siva Reddy, Ananthapur The Acit, Vs. Pin – 515 001. Circle-1, Pan Aampy0365L Kurnool. Andhra Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 2(47)(ii)Section 48

direct and proximate connection with the transfer consideration and is fully deductible under Section 48. 3. Extinguishment of rights amounts to transfer under Section 2(47)(ii) The learned CIT(A) has overlooked that the demolition resulted in the extinguishment of the assessee's ownership rights in the building ... event squarely falling within the ambit of "transfer" as defined in Section 2(47)(ii). "Section 2(47)(ii) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 The "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes, the extinguishment of any rights therein" This interpretation has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

POONAM DHANANJAY SANDU,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 2050/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270A(3)Section 270A(9)Section 54

before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased... one residential house in India ..." 6. Further, as per Section 2(47)(ii), "transfer" includes any transaction which has the effect of transferring or extinguishing rights in a capital asset. 7. Before lower authorities ... year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased ... one residential house in India ..." 12. As per Section 2(47)(ii) of the Act, the “transfer” includes any transaction which has the effect of transferring or extinguishing rights in a capital asset. 13. After

MRS SHIREEN J. DASTUR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAXATION WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2204/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shireen J. Dastur Income Tax Officer, 330, Coral Avenue, (International Taxation), New Port Beach, Ward 2(1)(1), California Vs. Mumbai 92662 Usa (Pan : Ctlpd0257N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

because the vendee gets a legitimate right to enforce a specific performance of the agreement. The Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 2(47)(ii) of the Act held that if a right in respect of any capital asset is extinguished and that right is transferred to someone

MAIMOON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5010/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kadam, Sr.DR
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45

case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) and Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the transaction constituted a "transfer" as per section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act in AY 2010-11, since all material rights including possession were transferred

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

that since physical and vacant possession had been handed over under the JDA, the same would tantamount to "transfer" within the meaning of Sections 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act. He further held that, in the case of an assessee owning a 1000 square yards

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. PHOOLA RANI CHADHA, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3480/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

given letter of allotment which clearly described the precise number of flat so allotted to him. As per the provisions of Section 2(47)(ii) “Transfer” in relation to capital assets includes the extinguishment of any right therein. This letter of allotment extinguishes the rights of builder in the said

PHOOLA RANI CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 30(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3469/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

given letter of allotment which clearly described the precise number of flat so allotted to him. As per the provisions of Section 2(47)(ii) “Transfer” in relation to capital assets includes the extinguishment of any right therein. This letter of allotment extinguishes the rights of builder in the said

M/S. BEAVER AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMTIED ,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1433/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 14ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

MURALI KRISHNA YENUGULA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2347/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

kind" used in Section 2(14) of the Act is of wide import. When we read this expression along with expression defined in Section 2(47)(ii), i.e., extinguishment of any rights therein, we are of the considered view that giving up of right to claim specific performance

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 691/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 47

object and purpose of introduction of section 45(4) was to pluck the loophole by insertion of section 45(4) and omission of section 2(47)(ii) While introduction to section 45(4), clause (ii) of section 2(47) came to be omitted. Earlier, omission of clause (ii) of section ... same at the time of dissolution. The said loophole came to be plucked by insertion of section 45(4) and omission of section 2(47)(ii) At this stage, it is required to be noted that the word used "OR OTHERWISE in section 45(4) is very important

VENKAT RAJASEKHAR KONERU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 627/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

which had the effect of transferring the immovable property in question. The pigeonhole, therefore, that would support the orders under appeal would be Section 2(47)(ii) and (vi) of the I.T. Act in the facts of the present case. This being the case, we dismiss this appeal

PRAMOD REDDY TEKULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 611/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

which had the effect of transferring the immovable property in question. The pigeonhole, therefore, that would support the orders under appeal would be Section 2(47)(ii) and (vi) of the I.T. Act in the facts of the present case. This being the case, we dismiss this appeal

BANDI SUDHEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 610/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

which had the effect of transferring the immovable property in question. The pigeonhole, therefore, that would support the orders under appeal would be Section 2(47)(ii) and (vi) of the I.T. Act in the facts of the present case. This being the case, we dismiss this appeal

R.C. NIRULA & SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6093/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshr.C. Nirula & Sons Huf, Vs. Asst. Commissioner A-2, Anand Niketan, Of Income Tax, New Delhi Circle-52(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaahr6050F Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Praveen Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

booking rights and not immovable property, therefore provisions of section 2(47)(v) were not applicable requiring condition of handing over possession, but section 2(47)(ii) shall be applicable which require condition of relinquishment of asset. As per the Ld. AO there was relinquishment of rights and, therefore transfer ... fulfilled by both the parties involved before any valid transfer happens on its basis. Thus, there was no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) (ii) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the transfer in AY 2008-09 on the ground that the case

CITI CORP INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (IT) 1(2),

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

ITA 2732/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: 17.11.2023
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

contention of ld. counsel for the assessee that sale as contemplated under section 2(47)(i) and extinguishment of rights as contemplated under section 2(47)(ii) are not mutually interchangeable. If a particular transaction is the transaction of sale then unless the sale is complete, no transfer

CITICORP INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.D.I.T. (IT) RG.-1, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2545/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: 17.11.2023
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

contention of ld. counsel for the assessee that sale as contemplated under section 2(47)(i) and extinguishment of rights as contemplated under section 2(47)(ii) are not mutually interchangeable. If a particular transaction is the transaction of sale then unless the sale is complete, no transfer

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

such cancellation and extinguishment of the\naforementioned shares would clearly amount to a transfer as\ndefined in section 2(47) of the Act. Section 2(47)(ii) clearly\napplies to the cancellation of shares under the Scheme and in\nthe alternative, it is possible to contend that section 2(47

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. MODESTY GARMENTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 183/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Acit Vs. M/S Modesty Garments, Circle-28(1), B-304, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aaafm1598F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Gupta, CA, Sh. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 194ISection 37(1)Section 40Section 68

Asset under Section 2(42a) 4) DCIT Mumbai Vs Deepak Shashi Bhushan Roy 96 Taxman.com 648 (Mumbai Tribunal) 5) Definition of Transfer under Section 2(47)(ii) 10.6 It was thus contended that payments made towards cost of land in A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are eligible for benefit

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2