← All Phrases

“transfer of capital asset”

Capital GainsSection 2(47)Section 2(47)596 judgments

The decision most relied on for transfer of capital asset is Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT (260 ITR 491), cited in 150 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on transfer of capital asset

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. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.
273 ITR 1 · 2005 · Supreme Court
140
citing judgments

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha
105 ITR 133 · 1976 · Supreme Court
93
citing judgments

The character of land as agricultural land or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by the cumulative effect of all circumstances. Classification in revenue records alone is not conclusive evidence of agricultural use; actual agricultural operations must be proven.

A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT
176 ITR 417 · 1989 · Supreme Court
85
citing judgments

The cost of acquiring leasehold rights can be determined, and the transfer of such rights, including mining leases, constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, making any surplus on such transfer taxable as capital gains.

CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.
66 ITR 622 · 1967 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

The 'full value of consideration' for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or its predecessor, Section 12B of the 1922 Act), means the actual price bargained for and received or accrued by the parties. It does not refer to the market value or any notional value of the asset transferred.

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.

CIT v. Tata Services Ltd.
122 ITR 594 · 1980 · High Court
76
citing judgments

A right to purchase property under an agreement to sell is a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. The relinquishment or extinguishment of such a right constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, the consideration for which is taxable as capital gains.

Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT
325 ITR 422 · 2010 · Supreme Court
72
citing judgments

Forfeited advance money received for the transfer of a capital asset is not taxable as revenue receipt. Such forfeiture pertains to a capital receipt directly related to the potential sale of a capital asset.

Judgments citing transfer of capital asset

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Sudharshna Arora, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

accrued or was never received cannot be computed as capital gain. He rightly held that it is manifest that the consideration for the transfer of capital asset is what the transferor receives, in lieu of assets he parts wit, i.e. money or monies worth and expression 'full consideration cannot

Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 8318/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrekhaben Sharadkumar Vs Ito Ward 42(1)(4) Mehta Room No.733, Kautilya Bhawan, 211 Tiwari Bhawan, S Modi Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067 Pan:Ahppm8680G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69BSection 92A

income tax return. During the impugned assessment year the Ld. AO had received information with the assessee had made a transaction for transfer of capital asset and the stamp duty value is assessed more than declare sale value amount of Rs.45,50,000/-. The assessee purchased immovable property value amount ... Hence, total investments in immovable property made by the assessee are of Rs. 45,50,000/-. Also, the assessee has transferred of Capital Asset where stamp duty value assessed is more than declared sale value of Rs 45,50,000/- while the value of stamp duty

M/S R. S. Shetye & Bros, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Panaji

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

surface right together with certain mica mines located therein. The indenture by which such land was leased with surface right held to be transfer of capital asset giving rise to gain tax. The former ratio subsequently found affirmed & followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘RK Palshikar

Seeta Nayyar, Mumbai vs. ACIT -OSD-in Situ ITO-19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6714/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiaseeta Nayyar, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Flat No.5, Rockdale, In Situ, Ito, 19(3)(3), Vs. Ld Ruparel Marg, Mumbai Mumbai - 400006 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. Ar (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR
Section 54

extent of constructed area falling into their shares. Of course, additionally, the monetary amount. Thus, in our view, there was a transfer of capital asset in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act. The capital asset transferred was the existing immovable property in lieu of which assessee

Avijit Gorain, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 2398/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Avijit Gorain…………….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Jain Vinod & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Diamond Prestige Nirman, Suite 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Aqvpg8082F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Durgapur…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015– 16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & He Did Not File Any Return Of Income. As Per Information Received By The Assessing Officer, The Assessee Made Transactions In Selling Immovable Property Of Rs.89,46,452/- & Transfer Of Capital Assets Of Rs.31,97,560/-. Due To Absence Of Supporting Documents Or Explanations From The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Added Avijit Gorain Rs.1,21,44,012/- (Rs.89,46,452/- & Rs.31,97,560/-) By Passing An Order U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

Section 144Section 147Section 250

income. As per information received by the Assessing Officer, the assessee made transactions in selling immovable property of Rs.89,46,452/- and transfer of capital assets of Rs.31,97,560/-. Due to absence of supporting documents or explanations from the assessee, the Assessing Officer added Avijit Gorain Rs.1

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Manikandan, Chennai

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

goodwill) in the partnership firm in which he is one of the partners, and accordingly, the AO has rightly treated the transaction as transfer of capital asset as defined u/s 2(47), attracting tax under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act.” The assessee is an in individual and partner ... held that the reduction in the share of the existing partners due to the admission of new partners did not amount to a transfer of capital assets and hence was not taxable. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the ruling are reproduced below: "5. These

Bandekar Brothers Private Limited, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

rights/interest granted/acquired under such mining lease. The cost incurred in acquiring such rights/interest partakes its character from an underlying subject matter of transfer namely capital asset, hence it is a capital expenditure for the purpose of the Act. Such cost being capital in nature & not being a revenue in substance ... surface right together with certain mica mines located therein. The indenture by which such land was leased with surface right held to be transfer of capital asset giving rise to gain tax. The former ratio subsequently found affirmed & followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘RK Palshikar

Harish Hari Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 33(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7509/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarharish Hari Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shop No.1, Gokul Monarch, Tax, Circle 33(1), Mumbai Room No. 949, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101 Bhawan, G-Block, Bandra (E), Pan:Aadpg1721F Mumbai-400051 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram [For Brevity ‘The Ld.Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 43CSection 48

also since both the sections are similarly worded with the difference being that section 50C is applicable in case of transfer of capital asset being land or building or both and section 43CA is for the transfer of asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Techno Trexim India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 582/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uss.

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 37

fact and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the position of law in respect of transfer of capital asset is different in the Income Tax Act 1961 as compared to the general law where owner of a property is considered in different manner ... dealt with by the AO in Para-62 to 80 of the assessment order. The assessee had claimed long term capital loss on transfer of capital assets in Piyush Property No. 46 and Piyush Property No. 47, and the AO raised various queries as discussed in the assessment order

Techno Trexim (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uss.

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 37

fact and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the position of law in respect of transfer of capital asset is different in the Income Tax Act 1961 as compared to the general law where owner of a property is considered in different manner ... dealt with by the AO in Para-62 to 80 of the assessment order. The assessee had claimed long term capital loss on transfer of capital assets in Piyush Property No. 46 and Piyush Property No. 47, and the AO raised various queries as discussed in the assessment order

A.C..I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6227/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

without appreciating that such reassessment was a direct consequence of the categorical finding of the Honorable ITAT in earlier proceedings that the transfer of capital asset had taken place in AY 2003-04, thereby attracting the overriding provisions of section 150(1) of the Income ... without appreciating that such reassessment was a direct consequence of the categorical finding of the Hon'ble ITAT in earlier proceedings that the transfer of capital asset had taken place in AY 2003-04, thereby attracting the overriding provisions of section 150(1) of the Income

A.C.I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6226/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

without appreciating that such reassessment was a direct consequence of the categorical finding of the Honorable ITAT in earlier proceedings that the transfer of capital asset had taken place in AY 2003-04, thereby attracting the overriding provisions of section 150(1) of the Income

ACIT Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Ess Aar Automotive Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9692/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

taxing of forfeited money received as advance or otherwise in the course of negotiations for transfer of a capital asset without resulting in transfer of capital asset has been introduced in the statute in section 56(ix) of the act with effect from assessment year 2015-16 onwards. Therefore

Mr Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Pune

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

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

provisions of section 45(2) of the Act. This fact, according to the Assessing Officer, clearly shows that the assessee has transferred his capital asset into stock in trade in view of the Joint Venture agreement dated 20.01.2011. He, therefore, was of the view that the land is transferred ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and the CIT (Appeals) have erred in considering year of transfer of capital asset and charging it to tax in the Assessment Year 2017-18. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in charging capital gain

Smt. Shree Jain, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that

ITA 2565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Textile Mills Ltd., 138 ITR 195 (Del.) where it was held that ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain capital gain arising from transfer of capital asset is chargeable to tax in the year of transfer, even though consideration was not ascertained and was in dispute. 4. Aggrieved

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Shri Harish Bahl, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2802/DEL/2024[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year :2008] Dcit Vs Shri Harish Bahl Circle-22(2) D-119, Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024. Delhi Pan-Aahpb3859K Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Nikhil Rungta Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

sold the shares of the company after holding the same for a period of more than one year therefore, it is a transfer of capital assets and should be taxable as Capital gains and cannot be treated as business income. On the other hand, Revenue is challenging the same

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. ACIT Circle Palampur, Palampur

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

ITA 947/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) (Virtual) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

facilitation fees and consultation fees were also upheld on the ground that it was not incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of capital asset. The alternative claim as made by the assessee u/s 54F was held to be not admissible on the findings that the assessee owned

Saroj Goenka, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

after the date of transfer but within three years from such date. If the date of sale is considered as the date of transfer of capital asset, the case of the assessee would not fall within the parameters of the said provision. These investments are made before one year

Lalchand Narayan Bhakt, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 2, Jalna

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

ITA 93/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)(v)

referred to the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the 3 Act and observed that there was a part performance of transfer of capital assets as the said land is located within 8 kilometers from the end of the municipal limits of Jalna city. Further the assessee has received ... appellant and the copy of suits discussed above which substantiates the appellant's contention. Nevertheless, if the said agreement stand cancelled without transfer of capital assets, there is an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, which has been forfeited by the appellant and other sellers. A substantial period (14 years

Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 791/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.791/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Amara Raja Energy & Mobility Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. Tirupati – 517 520. Tirupati Pan Aabca9264E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca E Phalguna Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA E Phalguna KumarFor Respondent: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

fund for 8 ITA.No.791/Hyd./2025 NAV as on the date of balance-sheet. This notional income is neither accrued nor arise on transfer of capital asset as on the date of balance-sheet and, therefore, the same is not a taxable transaction. The assessee has declared the gain