← 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

Income Tax Officer 23.2.1, Mumbai vs. Mig Co Op Housing Society Group II Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4075/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

made an addition of Rs. 5,24,63,648/- to the income of the assessee on account of capital gain arising on transfer of capital asset. 4. Next issue raised by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings were regarding certain payments made by the developer on behalf

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhawan Bkc Kurla vs. Godrej Agrovet Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2026/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalthe Income Tax Officer, Godrej Agrovet Limited, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Godrej One, Bkc Kurla, 3Rd Floor Pirojshanagar, Mumbai-400051 E.E, Highway, Vikhroli So Mumbai, Mumbai-400079. [Pan: Aaacg0617Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR
Section 112Section 112(1)Section 112(1)(c)Section 133(6)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 48

section 48 it can be seen that in the case of an assessee which is a non resident, capital gain arising from the transfer of capital asset being the share in Indian company shall be computed by the cost of acquisition expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively Asst. Year ... connection with such transfer and the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of capital asset into the same foreign currency as was initially utilized for the purchase of shares or debentures, and the capital gains so computed in such foreign currency shall

ITO Ward - 18(3), New Delhi vs. Samkiksha Mahajan, New Delhi

ITA 347/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’ble Vice President And

Rahul Nath, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7409/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Shri Saksham Garg and Ms. Ragini Handa, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

claimed for exemption has arisen from transfer of long term capital asset and appellant has within a period of three years after the transfer of capital assets constructed a residential house. The appellant has submitted that completion certificate was not submitted as it is not called ... Section 54F the appellant has to made investment in the construction of the residential house within a period of three years after the transfer of capital assets. The relevant provisions of Section 54F is reproduced as under:- 54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where

ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Rahul Nath, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7008/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

claimed for exemption has arisen from transfer of long term capital asset and appellant has within a period of three years after the transfer of capital assets constructed a residential house. The appellant has submitted that completion certificate was not submitted as it is not called ... Section 54F the appellant has to made investment in the construction of the residential house within a period of three years after the transfer of capital assets. The relevant provisions of section 54F is reproduced as under:- Section 54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where

Aakanksha Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 69(1), New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2763/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2763/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Aakanksha Gupta, Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, Vs. Ward 69(1), 78, Navyug Market, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Ghazaibad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Amhpg9430D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 54

dates of transaction etc or supplying the basis of such information in the possession of the AO; - the fact that sale consideration on transfer of capital asset does not represent ’income’ and thus, without quantification or determination of amount of capital gains, valid jurisdiction cannot be assumed; 5. That

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets. The assessee had raised this claim as an additional ground before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which the Assessing Officer rejected

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 914/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets. The assessee had raised this claim as an additional ground before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which the Assessing Officer rejected

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction - the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets. The assessee had raised this claim as an additional ground before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which the Assessing Officer rejected

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets. The assessee had raised this claim as an additional ground before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which the Assessing Officer rejected

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 850/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets. The assessee had raised this claim as an additional ground before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which the Assessing Officer rejected

Dcie Circle-2(1)(1), Ahemdabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets. The assessee had raised this claim as an additional ground before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which the Assessing Officer rejected

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 848/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets. The assessee had raised this claim as an additional ground before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which the Assessing Officer rejected

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifescience Limited Shivarth Ambit, Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of capital assets. The assessee had raised this claim as an additional ground before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which the Assessing Officer rejected

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kct Papers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 391

view of the aforesaid section, since all the conditions of amalgamation provided in section 2(1B) of the Act were duly satisfied, therefore, transfer of capital assets from NIHL, MAL and GIHL to KCTBL was exempt from capital gains tax. 31. Similarly, section 47(vib) of the Act exempts ... transfer of capital asset by the demerged company to the resulting company pursuant to demerger. Thus, in view of the above, subsequent transfer of capital assets made by KCTBL(after merger) to the resulting companies (including the assessee company) was also exempt from tax. 32. In other words, there

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)

hands of the landowner was governed by Section 45(1) of the Act, i.e., it was taxable in the year in which the transfer of capital assets took place. Any gain or loss arising from transfer of Capital Asset shall be considered as a Capital Gain or Loss

Shri K.G Subbarama Setty, Bangalore vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) Bangalore, C R Building

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

acceptable. It is neither a case of distribution of capital asset in the partition of HUF not it is a case of transfer of capital asset under a gift, will or by succession, inheritance & therefore the question of the consideration of the period for which the asset was held

K A Sujit Chandan, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Bengaluru.-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

acceptable. It is neither a case of distribution of capital asset in the partition of HUF not it is a case of transfer of capital asset under a gift, will or by succession, inheritance & therefore the question of the consideration of the period for which the asset was held

Ram Niranjan Banka, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 54(1)(ii)

being cost of construction incurred by the assessee and paid to Developer for said area as expenses incurred in connection with transfer of capital asset. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) after taking in to account the submission of the assessee upheld the order of AO on this issue by observing