“Section 2(47)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(47)(vi)20 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

application to\nthe present facts in view of the change in law with regard to part performance w.e.f.\n2001 onwards. So far as Section 2(47) (vi) of the Act is concerned, the impugned order\nheld that there was no transfer in terms of Section 2(47)(vi

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

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C

napplication to the present facts in view of the change in law with regard to part\nperformance w.e.f. 2001 onwards. So far as Section 2(47) (vi) of the Act is concerned,\nthe impugned order held that there was no transfer in terms of Section 2(47)(vi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

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

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

below for\nkind and ease of reference:\nQuote\n(i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Balbir Singh Maini (SC)\n22. The object of Section 2(47)(vi) appears to be to bring within\nthe tax net a de facto transfer of any immovable property.\nThe expression “enabling the enjoyment

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)

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)(vi)] 6.4 The definition of 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) includes any arrangement or transaction whereby any rights are handed over in execution

BALAJEE INFRATECH & CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

merely because it was made to a Power of Attorney holder rather than the owner. 12.1. The legislative framework itself provides the answer. Section 2(47)(vi) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 1987, expressly recognizes the concept of transfer through enjoyment of property rights by virtue

SUVARNA CHANDRAKANT BHOJANE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1997/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Suvarna Chandrakant Bhojane Ito 42(3)(4) Flat No. 401, 4Th Floor, Wadhwa Kautilya Bhavan Group, Boulevard-3, Lbs Marg Vs. Bandra Kurla Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400 Complex, Bandra-E 086. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Agipb2777K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Agarwal

Section 2(47)(vi)Section 50C

decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini 12 SCC 354 and held that section 2(47)(vi) of the Act and its definition of “transfer” is applicable to transfer of immovable properties and not the transfer of title. In the impugned

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

facts of this case, we need not go into any otl factual question. 21. However, the High Court has held that Section 2(47)(vi) will not apply for the reason that there was no change in membership of the society, as contemplated. We are afraid that cannot agree with ... High Court on this score. Under Section 2(47)(vi), any transaction which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property would cor within its purview. The High Court has not adverted to the expression "or in any other manr whatsoever" in sub-clause (vi

MOHAMMED JUNED SIDDIQUI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

held that the rights acquired by assessee in such manner through power of attorney, would have been considered, ‘transfer’ within the meaning of section 2(47)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, 5 A.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui since the circumstances indicated that he had retained the share that would

TAMAL KUNDU,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 37, , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1797/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1797/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT

Section 2(47)(vi)Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

wherein para 21 & 22 of the said order, it has been held as under: - “21. However, the High Court has held that Section 2(47)(vi) will not apply for the reason that there was no change in membership of the society, as contemplated. We are afraid that we cannot ... agree with the High Court on this score. Under Section 2(47)(vi), any transaction which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property would come within its purview. The High Court has not adverted to the expression “or in any other manner whatsoever

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

facts of this case, we need not go into any other factual question. 21. However, the High Court has held that Section 2(47)(vi) will not apply for the reason that there was no change in membership of the society, as contemplated. We are afraid that we cannot agree ... with the High Court on this score. Under Section 2(47)(vi), any transaction which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property would come within its purview. The High Court has not adverted to the expression “or in any other manner whatsoever

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150Section 68

Private Limited. M/s Shimmer Developers Private Limited continued to hold the immovable asset as inventory' The aforesaid situation, ideally, would trigger provisions of section 2(47)(vi) of (c) the Act. However, the asset in question is being held in the books of M/s Shimmer Developers Private Limited as inventory

ACIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI vs. CHANDIWALA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 219/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya & Ms. Vaishali More, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 86 taxmann.com 94/251 Taxman 202/398 ITR 531 adverted to the provisions of this section 2(47)(vi) and held that the object of section 2(47)(vi) appears to be to bring within the tax net a de facto transfer

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)

147/143(3) in AY 2008- 09, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment of the capital gain in AY 2008- 09 as STCG applying section 2(47)(vi) on the following grounds:- R.C. Nirula & Sons HUF a. When there is intention to convey rights in the agreement to sell ... extinguishment of rights in the property. 14. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the provisions of section 2(47)(vi) of the Act. In support of this, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 570/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

received by the assessee. Ld. Sr. DR has referred to the provisions of section 269UA(d) which defines the ‘immovable property’ and also section 2(47)(vi) which defines the term ‘transfer’. By referring to these two definitions, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that it can be easily inferred that ... explanation mentions “for the purpose of this sub clause”. Ld. Sr. DR has also referred to the definition of “transfer” in section 2(47)(vi) according to which any transaction which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property is also covered by the definition

K P MUHAMMED ALI,CALICUT vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 1008/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia (supra), relied upon by the Revenue. 5.4 At the same time, however, even as explained in P. George Jacob (supra) section 2(47)(vi) would equally stand to be attracted. The constraining factor of registration of a contract would not prevail, as it does in case ... Shri Palakkal, the learned counsel for the assessee, allowing him time to meet the Revenue’s case with reference to section 2(47)(vi) and, further, reliance on the order by the Coordinate Bench in P. George Jacob (supra).No submission in this regard was made by him; the assessee

PULIKKAPARAMBIL GEORGE JACOB,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE, 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

relevant to the current assessment year. Non-completion of construction, i.e., as envisaged thereby, is only a non-discharge of the transfer consideration. Section 2(47)(vi) is clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and we find ourselves in agreement and, accordingly, have no hesitation

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 896/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Sidharth, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 50C

said transaction is not tenable under the law as it stood applicable for the current assessment year. We are of the view that section 2(47)(vi) is applicable in the cases where the asset in question is like a group of houses owned by a company and each shareholder

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

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

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

this case, there is no need to go into any other factual question. [Para 20]  However, the High Court has held that section 2(47)(vi) will not apply for the reason that there was no change in membership of the society, as contemplated. One cannot agree with the High ... Court on this score. Under section 2(47)(vi), any transaction which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property would-come within its purview. The High Court has not adverted to the expression 'or in any other manner whatsoever' in sub-clause (vi), which