← 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

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR &
Section 154Section 250Section 32

legislature is also reflecting from the following provisions: i. There is no capital gain in the hands of the amalgamating company on the transfer of capital assets in the scheme of amalgamation under the provisions of section 47(vi) of the Act. ii. The cost of stock-intrade

Saurabh Prasannavadan Vakil, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(4)Vadodara(Now Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1)), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 975/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 975/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बनाम/ Saurabh Prasannavadan Income Tax Officer Ward Vakil 1(2)(4) (Now Deputy Vs. E 402 Nilamber Commissioner Of Income Bellissimo, Vasna Bhayli Tax Road, Vadodara 391410, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpv8393C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Milin Mehta & Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Ketki Desai, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 26/09/2024 15/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 06.05.2024 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Original Return Of Income For A.Y. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,19,54,960/- & Subsequently A Revised Return With Total Income Of Rs.2,24,26,160/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta & Ms. Amrin
Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 50ESection 54E

High Court had held that exemption of Rs.50 Lakhs each claimed in two financial years, within six months period from the date of transfer of capital asset, was eligible for exemption u/s 54EC of the Act. In the case of C. Jaichander (supra) also, the Hon’ble Madras High Court

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Bksps2554L Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Siva Jyothi Palam, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Bksps2554L Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

house property was registered on 17/12/2019 and therefore there was a time gap of more than 24 months between the date of transfer of capital asset and the date of 10 purchase of the new house property and denied exemption U/s. 54F of the Act. The only grievance

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Godavari Developers, Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stand dismissed in the above terms

ITA 1452/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1452/Hyd/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Godavari Developers, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aaffg5872K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.27/Hyd/2017 (In Ita No.1452/Hyd/2016) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 30/09/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 2(47)

year of realizing the consideration. "It was held that all the arguments relating to conveyance, possession etc., which were generally related to transfer of capital asset, were 8 C.O.No.27/Hyd/2017 rendered meaningless in such a case and the assessee having recognized business profit on sale of converted asset ... decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Crest Hotels Ltd., (Supra), that the capital gain on transfer of capital asset by way of conversion is chargeable to tax in assessment year 2005-06 as per the provisions of Sec. 45(2)". 6.3.4 Thus, going

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

chapter dealing with the computation of income under the head ‘income from capital gains’ and it deals primarily with gains on sale of transfer of capital assets. That it provides exemption also on investment in capital assets. He further pointed out that the ld. PCIT has given no basis whatsoever