← 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

M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 790/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 80I

capital asset namely infrastructure assets to its wholly owned subsidiary, M/s Ansal API Infrastructure Ltd., is not taxable without appreciating that such transfer of capital asset by a company to its wholly owned subsidiary is not a 'transfer' as per section 47(iv) of the Act and accordingly the surplus ... assessee in terms of Section 47(iv) of the Act. It was pointed out that Section 47(iv) of the Act related to transfer of capital assets to a 100% Indian subsidiary which was the instant case. Referring to various material filed before the lower authorities including the Annual Financial

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

54EC of the income tax act, 1961, when the assessee has purchased both the capital gain bonds prior to the date of transfer of capital asset. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in allowing claim of Rs 1 crore u/s 54EC ... also noted that the property at Mumbai was purchased on 6/9/2007, prior to the period of one year from the date of transfer of capital asset on 25th of March 2010, and further the assessee was also asked to justify the deduction of ₹ 1,70,00,000/- claimed on construction

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

54EC of the income tax act, 1961, when the assessee has purchased both the capital gain bonds prior to the date of transfer of capital asset. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in allowing claim of Rs 1 crore u/s 54EC ... also noted that the property at Mumbai was purchased on 6/9/2007, prior to the period of one year from the date of transfer of capital asset on 25th of March 2010, and further the assessee was also asked to justify the deduction of ₹ 1,70,00,000/- claimed on construction

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

54EC of the income tax act, 1961, when the assessee has purchased both the capital gain bonds prior to the date of transfer of capital asset. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in allowing claim of Rs 1 crore u/s 54EC ... also noted that the property at Mumbai was purchased on 6/9/2007, prior to the period of one year from the date of transfer of capital asset on 25th of March 2010, and further the assessee was also asked to justify the deduction of ₹ 1,70,00,000/- claimed on construction

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1881/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5

head ‘capital gains’ the same is to be computed by adopting the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset as per Section 48 of the Act. In such a situation the Ld. AR submitted that the] Assessing Officer could not have disregarded

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

received by him towards sale consideration as per the Registered Sale Agreement as the Full Consideration Value for Transfer of Capital Asset in A.Y. 2014-15 and not Rs. 1,30,20,000/- which was the Guideline value effective in A.Y. 2014-15 and the Sale value

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

plea of the Ld. AR that section 48 allows deduction of - (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of capital asset or (ii) cost of acquisition of asset, which are reduced from the sale consideration at the time of computing capital gains under section

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

plea of the Ld. AR that section 48 allows deduction of - (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of capital asset or (ii) cost of acquisition of asset, which are reduced from the sale consideration at the time of computing capital gains under section

Vandana Sethi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 1614/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14
Section 50CSection 54Section 54E

view of the proviso to section 50C(1), where the date of agreement fixing amount of consideration and date of registration regarding transfer of capital asset in question are not the same, value adopted or assessed or assessable by Stamp Value Authority on date of agreement is to be taken

Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, Sr. D.R
Section 139(5)Section 54

allowable only if the assessee purchased the residential house within one year before or two years after the date on which transfer of capital asset took place. The 6 ITA.No.1160/Del./2020 Shri Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad. details of sale and purchase of property is tabulated in the assessment order ... whether exemption under section 54 is allowable to the assessee on purchase of residential house within one year before the date on which transfer of capital asset took place. The facts noted above are not in dispute that assessee sold/transferred property No. 80 Shanti Vihar, Delhi on 24.02.2014 and purchased

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Abhuinandan Investments Lt

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 853 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020
Section 260ASection 391Section 47

lieu of shares held in JFAL. He referred to Section 45 of the Act which deals with taxing profits and gains arising from ‘transfer’ of ‘capital asset’ effected during the relevant year under the head ‘capital gain’ and further contended that the assessees would be entitled to the exemption under ... regarding applicability of Section 47 of the Act, the AO observed that reliance on aforesaid provision was misplaced as the same related to transfer of capital asset and not to stock held as stock- in-trade. During income tax assessment proceedings for the preceding year, holding of shares were treated

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S M/S Jindal Equipment Leasi

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 935 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020
Section 260ASection 391Section 47

lieu of shares held in JFAL. He referred to Section 45 of the Act which deals with taxing profits and gains arising from ‘transfer’ of ‘capital asset’ effected during the relevant year under the head ‘capital gain’ and further contended that the assessees would be entitled to the exemption under ... regarding applicability of Section 47 of the Act, the AO observed that reliance on aforesaid provision was misplaced as the same related to transfer of capital asset and not to stock held as stock- in-trade. During income tax assessment proceedings for the preceding year, holding of shares were treated

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Mansarovar Investments Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 961 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020
Section 260ASection 391Section 47

lieu of shares held in JFAL. He referred to Section 45 of the Act which deals with taxing profits and gains arising from ‘transfer’ of ‘capital asset’ effected during the relevant year under the head ‘capital gain’ and further contended that the assessees would be entitled to the exemption under ... regarding applicability of Section 47 of the Act, the AO observed that reliance on aforesaid provision was misplaced as the same related to transfer of capital asset and not to stock held as stock- in-trade. During income tax assessment proceedings for the preceding year, holding of shares were treated

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Gulab Sundri Bapna

Appeal is disposed of

ITA - 198 / 2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

this would not affect the compensation already taxed at the first instance in the earlier previous year when the transfer of capital asset took place. Thus, in case of compulsory acquisition of assets, capital gain was/is charged on the compensation originally awarded in the year of transfer, and the additional

M/S Central India Electric Supply Co.Ltd vs. ITO-Company Circle X & Ors

The appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own

ITA - 17 / 1999HC Delhi28 Jan 2011

Bench: Us In The Present Appeal, Are: “(1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Was Justified In Holding That Re-Assessment Proceedings Under Section 147(A) Read With Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Had Been Rightly Initiated Against The Assessee?

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54

assessee before the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had observed that as per Section 45(1), any profit or gain arising from transfer of capital assets affected in a previous year 2011:DHC:510-DB was chargeable to tax under the head of „Capital Gains‟ as income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Chand Ratan Bagri

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 31 / 2010HC Delhi20 Jan 2010
For Appellant: Ms P.L. Bansal with Ms Anshul SharmaFor Respondent: Mr Salil Aggarwal with Mr Prakash Kumar
Section 2(47)Section 45

submitted that the forfeiture of the said amount of Rs.59,50,000/- does not amount to extinguishment of any rights in the transfer of capital assets. She submitted that the extinguishment of the right must be in relation to the transfer of a capital asset and for this preposition