“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neeru Mohan Nagpal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: MS. Pallavi Khuntenta, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

relinquishment of any right in the property as defined in Section in 2(47) of the Act. Hence, there was no transfer of capital asset by the appellant and consequently, there was no capital loss incurred by the appellant. Hence, the appeal is not allowed." 5. As the assessee

Thanwardas Lalchand Motwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3975/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashish A ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 54

financial year relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. Further, section 45 of the Act provides that any profits & gains arising from the transfer of capital assets effective in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “capital gains” and shall be deemed

ITO, International Taxation Ward1(2), Chennai vs. Rajamanickam Arulselvan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 479/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45(3)

44/Chny/23 for the reasons recorded as per which, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment of capital gains derived from transfer of capital assets in terms of section 45(3) of the Act. Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2018 was issued and duly served ... Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary evidence and to explain as to why capital gain tax should not be charged for transfer of capital asset being vacant land as capital contribution to the partnership firm. In response, the assessee has submitted that partnership deed has been 4 I.T.A

Goldgreen Land Holdings LLP( Formerly Gold Green Holdings Private Limited), Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 473/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 50C

would fall within the ambit of Sec.45 of the Act, 2. GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY: Conveyance of immovable property by a GPA constitutes transfer of capital asset- PACE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS ( P, LTD.) V. Govt, of NCT(20130215) Taxman 554(Delhi). Where the developer took possession of the assessee land

DCIT, CC-1(3), 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

requisite for charging of long term capital gain u/s. 50C are – (i) Existence of capital asset (immovable property) as land or building (ii) Transfer of capital asset (iii) Amount of consideration. 4.1. It is stated that assessee was in possession of leasehold property which has been transferred for a consideration ... consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer.]” 7. Ld. Counsel submitted that section 50C applies only in case of a transfer of capital asset being land or building or both. According to him, the capital asset to be subjected to long term capital gain taxation

Deependra Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(1) Mumbai, Bandra East

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

ITA 2690/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledeependra Singh, Vs. Ito Ward-17(2)(1), 504 Pushpa Kunj, Kautaliya Bhavan, A Road,Marine Lines, Bandra East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400050. Pan/Gir No. : Akips3319N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Motiwalla.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougle. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

raising this ground as an after-thought. Alternately, it is pertinent to mention that Section 50C creates a deeming fiction to tax the transfer of capital asset being immovable property at the consideration, being higher of the consideration actually received or the stamp duty value of the said immovable property ... provisos reads as under: Provided that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of capital asset are not the same, The value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation authority on the date of agreement

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Larsen & Toubro Limited ( Formerly Known As L & T Shipbuilding Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2350/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Larsen & Toubro Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Central Circle-5(4), As L & T Shipbuilding Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Limited), Vs. Air India Building, L&T House, Nariman Point, N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl0140P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, D.R

Section 48(1)Section 50B

specifically says that in computing the taxable capital gains deduction can be claimed for expenses incurred (wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of capital assets). 12. It is not in dispute that the company has incurred these charges to complete the transfer of the property as per scheme

Olaikaragowder Arumugasamy, Coimbatore vs. Addl.CIT, Central Range-2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees’ and appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15,

ITA 296/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18