“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Sharad Goel, Raipur

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 93/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 250(4)Section 45(3)

with the contentions of the assessee that the land was agricultural and treated the land as capital asset and held it as a transfer of capital asset and added the difference between the book value and market value of the land amounting

Satish Anant Bhadri, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Kishore ChaudhariFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 54F

Appellant contended that the acquisition of LIC Market Plus policy amounted to investment in capital assets and the surrender thereof amounted to transfer of capital assets resulting in capital receipts. Since the policy was held for more than three years from the date of acquisition/purchase, the capital gain arising from

M/S. C.K.Gupta (HUF), Mujmbai vs. CIT -17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 274/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.274/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2016-17) M/S. C.K.Gupta (Huf), 22, St. James Court, Marine Drive, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aabhg-8349-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-17(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajen Damani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Shambhu Yadav, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajen DamaniFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 54E

respect of land comprising in survey No.42/4/1 and 42/4/2 situated at Village Manda. The assessee has claimed exemption u/s.54EC in respect of transfer of capital asset in the proceeding Assessment Year only to the extent of corresponding sale of flats. For granting development rights, the assessee is remunerated by Developer

M/S Wf Asian Smaller Companies Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr

Section 133CSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 92E

capital gain, which is arrived at after deducting cost of acquisition i.e. cost of any improvement and expenditure incurred in connection with transfer of capital asset, even for arriving of gain in transfer of equity shares; lastly, section 70 & 71 elaborates the mechanism for set off of capital gain. Nowhere

Mr.Vineet Shrivastava, Bhopal vs. The ITO ( It&Tp), Bhopal

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

ITA 107/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(12)Section 144C(13)

Without prejudice of above grounds and in alternate on merits of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing the expenses on transfer of capital asset amounting to INR 31,250 for want of evidence without appreciating that such amount is paid to RBI Employees Medhavi Cooperative Housing Society

Hemant Shridhar Phatak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-35(1)(5) Presently-ITO-42(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 268/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

For Appellant: S/Shri Devang Divecha &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chourasia, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54(1)

possession of flat on completion was handed over to the assessee within a period of three years from the date of transfer of capital asset, hence, the condition for claiming exemption u/s. 54 of the Act is satisfied. He further submitted that the exemption provision being beneficial provision should ... instant case, the assessee purchased two residential flats vide registered sale agreement dated 18/11/2011 i.e. more than one year before the date of transfer of capital asset. Undisputedly, at the time of purchase of residential flats the building was under construction. On completion of construction, possession of the flats were

Hemant Shridhar Phatak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-35(1)(5) Presently-ITO-42(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 267/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

For Appellant: S/Shri Devang Divecha &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chourasia, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54(1)

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Avantha Realty Ltd (Previous Known As Janpath Investment & Holding Ltd), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1333/DEL/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2004-05 The Dcit, Central Circle-20, Delhi Avantha Realty Ltd., (Previous Known As Janpath Vs. Investment & Holding Ltd.) 124, Thapar House, Janpath, Central Delhi 110001 Pan Aaacj 8030 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Avantha Realty Ltd., The Dcit, Central Circle-20, Delhi (Previous Known As Janpath Investment & Holding Ltd.) Vs. 124, Thapar House, Janpath, Central Delhi 110001 Pan Aaacj 8030 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Upvan Gupta, Adv

appellate order we note that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the claim of assessee of long term capital loss by observing that the transfer of capital asset by appellant company to its parent/holding company (in which appellant company is 100% subsidiary of its parent company i.e. BILT) therefore in view

Avantha Realty Limited (Previously Known As Janpath Investment & Holding Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1196/DEL/2022[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Upvan Gupta, Adv

Satya Dharma Hotels Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 4235/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Satya Dharma Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward-22(4), New Delhi 110002 177, 1St Floor, Vigyan Vihar, New Delhi 110092 Vs. Pan Aahcs 0289 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.C Yadav, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Ca Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue For : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Dated 01.03.2019 For Ay 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Assessee Are As Follows:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Cit (A)-08, New Delhi Is Contrary To The Facts & Bad In Law. 2. I) I Am Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Capital Gain Made By Assessing Officer. Ii) During The Assessment, Sec 55A Of Income Tax Act Has Not Been Considered By Assessing Officer For Valuation Of The Land As Requested By Us. Taking Rate Of Registering Authority & Not Consider The Fair Market Value Which Is Very Low. Iii)The Ld. Ao Has Not Considered The Addition Made During The Year & Added Back In The Income Of The Assessee Company. 4. Demand Calculated By A.O. Is Prejudicial To The Company And, If Appeal Is Not Allowed To Be Proceeded It Amounting To Against The Law.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Yadav, Adv

Section 1Section 50CSection 55A

Assessing Officer was under obligation to refer the matter to DVO for determination of fair market value as on the date of transfer of capital asset but the Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition treating the entire value as per circle rate without referring the matter for valuation

Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54EC of Rs.50,00,000/- as on 31.01.2013 though the transfer of capital assets took place on 28.01.2014. The assessing officer noted that as per the provision of section 54EC of the Act, the assessee is entitled for deduction ... assessee invested a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs each in two different financial years, within a period of six Months from date of transfer of capital asset, the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54EC of the Act. The findings of the Hon`ble Court are reproduced below

Shri Raj Kumar Johari, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

ITA 666/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 50Section 50C

been categorically mentioned ……’’Provided that where the date of the 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

Smt Hafiz Shaikh, Dewas vs. The ITO Ward-1, Dewas

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

ITA 56/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihafiz Shaikh Ito Ward-1 32/2, Laxmi Park Moti Dewas Vs. Bunglow Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajups6986 L Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023

Section 45Section 45(3)Section 54Section 54B

income of Rs.4,01,630/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,10,405/-. During the scrutiny assessment, the AO noted that the assessee has transferred a capital asset to the partnership firm and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The AO denied the claim of deduction on the ground that ... which is liable to be disallowed. The assessee declared long term capital gain u/s 45(3) on transfer of capital assets in the firm as capital, which is deemed long term capital gain without receiving any consideration. The Page 3 of 6 Hafiz Shaikh Page 4 of 6 assessee

Smt Radha Bai, Bhopal vs. The ITO3 (2), Bhopal

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

ITA 105/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Indore29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Radha Bai Ito 3(2) 118 Babadiya Kala Huzur Bhopal Near Radha Kishan Vs. Mandir Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bqdpb 8561 R Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023

Section 250(6)

capital gains. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,000/-in respect of expenses on transfer of capital asset 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that Ld. ICIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

ITO - 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sigrun Holdings Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 234/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath DasFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(47)

allowed.” (Emphasis Supplied) We concur with the findings returned by the CIT(A) that during the 8. relevant previous year there was no transfer of capital asset by the Appellant and therefore, the question of taxability of capitals gains income in the hands of the appellant does not arise

Deputy Commissiner of Income Tax, Lic Building vs. M/S Gee Vee Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Vision Estates Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 266/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Chokhi Dhani Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 265/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 264/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Narayan Devarajan Iyengar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax, Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 106/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri Dilip K. Shah

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148

rent for alternative accommodation and corpus/monetary consideration amount under the head long term capital gain of the year in which transfer of capital asset is complete. 5. Without prejudice to above Grounds Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 above, on facts, in circumstances of the case