“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

Subbalakshmamma Pinnama, Thummalagunta, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1463/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 45

assessee has also furnished return of income in 6 Subbalakshmi Pinnama response to notice u/s 148 and declared capital gains derived from transfer of capital asset and the same has been accepted by the A.O. without any adjustment. From the above, it is very clear that, the assessee

Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkatq

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: S/shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR

immovable property or to obtain a specific performance is a capital asset and when the right is assigned it gives rise to transfer of capital asset and income or loss would be charged to tax under the head of capital gain. Therefore, we set aside the order

Niravkumar Desai, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 549/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Assessing Officer. Therefore The Ld. A.O. Added Entire Amount Of Rs.94,08,163/- As The Income Of The Assessee.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 50C(2)

exceed basic exemption limit. The assessee sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.29,00,000/- but not disclosed capital gain on transfer of capital asset. Therefore the assessment was reopened. The assessing officer found that the Fair Market Value as per Stamp Valuation Authority is Rs.94,08,163/-. Since

Kakoli Debanshi, Birbhum vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Suri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1664/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm**

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee is a non-filer of return but as per information available on record the assessee has entered into transaction in respect of transfer of capital assets of ₹40,00,000 and deposited cash amounting to ₹20,34,000/- during the year. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened

Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore, Mahalkshmipuram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Intl, Taxation 1(2) Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

ITAT. (g) Krishnappa Jayaramaiah v. ITO [2021] 125 taxmann.com 110/189 ITD 15 (Bang.) - The assessee had invested sale consideration received on transfer of Capital Asset in purchasing a new residential property in name of his married widowed daughter and the exemption was allowed to the assessee. (h) Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar

Mrs Shireen J. Dastur, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Taxation Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2204/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shireen J. Dastur Income Tax Officer, 330, Coral Avenue, (International Taxation), New Port Beach, Ward 2(1)(1), California Vs. Mumbai 92662 Usa (Pan : Ctlpd0257N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 234B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO and DRP erred in holding that there is a transfer of capital asset which gave rise to a chargeable capital gain. 4. Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Court would have adjudicated the same in her favour. 6.4. What emerges from the preceding discussion is that there is no transfer of capital asset between the assessee and the purchaser except for accepting the offer of the purchaser of withdrawing her civil suit so as to enable

Bimla Devi Agrawal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1690/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(15)Section 250

specifically for the case of capital gain arising from the transfer of capital asset being land or building or both by taking full value of consideration to be the value adopted or assessed by the authority of a Statement Government for the purpose of stamp duty in accordance with

Jag Devi, Delhi vs. Del-W-(56)(6), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6012/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6012/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jag Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, Rz 203, Kirari Extn., Partap Vihar, Del-W-(56)(6), Phase-1, Nangloi, New Delhi-110041 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aumpd3682M Assessee By: Sh. Deepak Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Milan Saini, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

long term capital gains. Considering the said facts, the High Court held that the cashless exercise of option therefore was a transfer of capital asset by way of a relinquishment/ extinguishment of right in capital asset in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act. (e). The Delhi High Court

ITO 19.2.4, Mumbai vs. Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2989/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar

Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

states that unutilized capital gain can only be taxed in the previous year in which 3 years expire from the year in which transfer of capital asset took place. There was no bar to keep the capital gain money in savings or FD form. For the purposes of claiming deduction

Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)4, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1787/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar

Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 343 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम The DCIT H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh Circle 1(1), Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACO4024H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 988 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh The DCIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

specified that if the income has a business connection in India or through an asset or proprietary or transfer of capital asset in India. The appellant has contended that there was no business connection, etc. in India. It is apparent that sections 9(ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) are not applicable

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

DCIT Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. Dhunseri Ventures Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1780/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata..……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Dhunseri Ventures Ltd…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 4A, Dhunseri House, Woodburn Park, Kol - 700020.. [Pan: Aabck1597K] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 16, 2025

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

under : "28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find merit in the contentions of the assessee that the profit arising on transfer of capital asset to its wholly owned Indian subsidiary company is liable to be excluded from the Net profit., i.e., the Net profit disclosed in the Profit ... Loss account should be reduced by the amount of profit arising on transfer of capital asset and the amount so arrived at shall be taken as "Net profit as shown in the profit and loss account" for the purpose of computation of book profit under Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB

Reliance Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 50

taxmann.com 15 / 387 ITR 354 held that assessee is eligible to claim exemption under section 54E in respect of capital gain arising on transfer of capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court had affirmed decision of Bombay High Court

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that assessee accepted Rs, 75,00,000/- as an advance in relation of transfer of capital assets. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made ... Hence, 83,453/- was disallowed The assessee also accepted Rs. 75,00,000 as an advance in relation of transfer of capital asset. The assessee failed to give a satisfactory reply and provide any required details. Hence, the A.O. completed the assessment and passed order u/s 147/1448 of the Income

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

note that the assessee never acquired any capital asset or expenditure of enduring benefits to WOS and there is no relinquishment or transfer of capital asset to any third party. In view of preceding analysis, the first substantial question of law is answered in the negative and in favour

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Module Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1792/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

into for want of permissions and for the development of land, there would be no profit or gains which arose in respect of transfer of capital asset. The relevant portion of the Head Note in the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme is as follows :- Section 2(47), read

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

when the same is subjected to levy of STT, it becomes exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Hence only if the said transfer of capital assets are made in the open market through a registered share broker registered in the stock exchange and subjected to levy ... 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, sections 70 & 71 elaborates the mechanism for set off of capital gain. Nowhere