“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

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6575/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(1)

Hence we direct the ld. AO to grant deduction for brokerage in the sum of Rs 6,00,000/- as expenditure incurred on transfer of capital assets and recompute the capital gains accordingly. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6574/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(1)

DCIT Cent -Cir.1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is allowed

ITA 1711/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-1(2), 511, Dalamal Towers, 211, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishta Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mumbai-400 021 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs1269E Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Nihar Mehta & Jayesh B. Kapani, Cas’ Revenue By : Dr. Pallavi Darade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

allowed, on appeal, the learned CIT – A allowed the claim of the assessee. We find that the right off the loss on transfer of capital asset cannot be allowed to the assessee as a revenue loss. The learned CIT – A is incorrect in allowing such loss. Only a revenue loss

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Mysuru vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Limited, Mysuru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2551/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2Section 288Section 35ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 48Section 49Section 50B

subject assessment year 2006-07. On further appeal, the revenue contended that in terms of section 45(1) of the Act that transfer of capital asset would attract the capital gains tax and the amount to be taxed under section 45(1) is not dependent upon the receipt

Mr. Mahesh D. Saini, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-35(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1929/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1929/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Mr. Mahesh D. Saini बिधम/ Ito, Ward-35(2)(3) 203, Lukhi Niwas Kailash Room No. 745, 7Th Floor, Vs. Puri, Upper Govind Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Plot No. 135, Malad (E), C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai-400097. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1048M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh B. Shah Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai Dated 28.02.2020 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,05,37,002/- As Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Treating The Purported Capital Asset As Transfer In View Of The Provisions Of Section 2(47) (V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) R.W. Section 53A Of The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (4 Of 1882) (Hereinafter In Short As “Topa”). 3. Brief Facts Of The Case As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A) Is That The Ao Noticed That During The Year, The Assessee Jointly With His Two (2) Brothers, Viz Shri Formal Dedrajmali Alias Sainik/Siani & Shri Kailash Dedraj Mali Alias Sainik/Saini, Entered Into Sale Cum

For Appellant: Shri Haresh B. ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr

Section 2(47)Section 50CSection 53A

virtue of Section 53A of transfer of property Act, tranfer has taken place. Therefore, as per AO since the incident of tax (transfer of capital asset) having taken place, the assessee was bound to offer the capital gain on it. And therefore he held as under: - “4.6 As regards

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri. B.M. Jayeshankar, Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)For Respondent: Shri Nagin Khincha, A.R

head “Capital gains” shall be computed by deducting from the full value of sale consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset after deducting the cost of acquisition and cost of transfer. Being so, the amount of consideration received or receivable to be considered

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

between the assessee and the facilitators was valid and that the payments to them being expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with transfer of capital assets, were deductible in computing capital gains. This decision, submitted vide letter dated 7th February 2022, is a binding precedent in view of similarity ... lakhs was paid to 'A' over and above his contribution of Rs. 5 lakhs so as to pave way for easy transfer of capital asset in favour of ITC Ltd. and only by such payment assessee was in a position to transfer property and, hence, payment was made wholly

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Zelle Biotechnology Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7675/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit-13(3)(2) V. M/S. Zelle Biotechnology Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229/219, 2Nd Floor 110, Udyog Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sonawala Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400063 Pan: Aaacz2106R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Meet Shah Department By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani

For Appellant: Shri Meet ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

company. As per the above explanation the amalgamated 10 M/s. Zelle Biotechnology Pvt. Ltd., company has to record the actual cost of the transfer of capital assets to the amalgamate company, as if it would have been the assets of the amalgamated company. We observe from the record that assessee

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5664/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32 is not applicable to the facts of the assessee case. The said provisions are applicable to the following cases only: (1) Transfer of capital assets by a firm to a company as contemplated in section 47(xiii); (2) Transfer of capital assets by a sole proprietary concern ... section 170 of the Act. The proviso to sub-section (xiii) &- (xiv)' indicates that sub-section (xiii) is applicable only where any transfer of capital assets or intangible assets has been effected by a firm to a company as a result of succession of the firm by a company

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5663/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 32(1)(ii)

DCIT - 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd.(Formerly Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5662/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Section 32(1)(ii)

Leila Advani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MishraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

income to non-resident commission agents did not accrue or arise in India through or from any property in Indie or through the transfer of capital asset situated in India. In the facts and circumstances, the provisions of section 9(1) were not applicable to such payment of commission

M/S C Bhansali Developers Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Ward 15 (1)92), Mumbai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 7562/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri R. A. Dhyani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Khushiram Jodhawani, Adv

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(3)Section 50C

BECAUSE M. CITIA) erred in law and on facts in affirming the addition made by the AO by asserting that in respect to transfer of capital asset being land and building in determining the full value of consideration the provisions of section 50C will be applicable in defiance ... books of accounts of the company/firm shall be deemed to ITA No.7562/Mum/2019 | 3 be the full value of consideration receive on such transfer of capital asset. The assessee further submitted that the provision of section 50C is not applicable to such kind of transfer to which specific provisions of section

Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 281/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

come to right conclusion with regard to the income or loss i.e. short term/long term capital loss arising out of the transfer of capital asset. Being so, in our opinion, the conclusion arrived by the CIT that AO has not examined the issue is not proper. Being ... Further, we make it clear that we have allowed the legal issue in relation to assumption of jurisdiction with reference to loss on transfer of capital asset i.e., short term or long term and other issue is sustained. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

DCIT CC- 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Avinash N. Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1436/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 10(38)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45Section 47

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

Smt Munilakshamamma, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 880/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.T.Srinivas Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45Section 53A

Schedule Property." ………….. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec.45 of the Act lays down that profits and gains arising out of transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax under the head "capital gains" and shall be deemed ... registered deed in such circumstances. Capital gains become liable to be charged to tax only if they arise as a result of "transfer" of capital asset and the date on which they arise is date of "transfer". If as a result of mutual arrangement by parties or otherwise, no registered

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai

Section 170Section 2(42)Section 2(42)(C)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 50BSection 5O

company. 18. Section 47(xiii) deals with the case of transfer of a capital asset by a firm. Section 47(xiiib) deals with transfer of capital asset by a private company or unlisted company, limited liability partnership on transfer's which are result of conversion of the company into

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 312/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

Section 153A

ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 311/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

Section 153A

ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA