← 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

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

through or from any property in Indla, or through or from any asset or source of income in India, or through the transfer of capital asset situate in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. Therefore, in the assessee`s case the export commission is payable ... directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India or through or any capital asset situate, in India or though the transfer of capital asset situate in India. The provision of section 9(1)(i) has been duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case

Binalben Pinkeshbhai Naik, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-1, Navsari

ITA 1061/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

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

ITA 1060/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1059/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Anilbhai Desai 87, Brahman Faliya, Udhna Kharwasa Road, Dindoli, Surat – 394210 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gcbpd0303J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1060/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Dakshaben Ajitbhai Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward 87, Brahman Faliyu, Dindoli, Choryasi. Surat – 394 210 Vs. 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayspd 0711F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1061/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Binalben Pinkeshbhai Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, 132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi Navsari Navsari - 396445 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aftpn 6207 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr : 05/08/2025 : 18/08/2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

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

ITA 1059/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1059/Srt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Anilbhai Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 87, Brahman Faliya, Udhna Kharwasa Road, Dindoli, Surat – 394210 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gcbpd0303J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1060/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Dakshaben Ajitbhai Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 87, Brahman Faliyu, 2(3)(1), Surat Dindoli, Choryasi. Surat – 394 210 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayspd 0711F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1061/Srt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Binalben Pinkeshbhai Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, 132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi Navsari Navsari - 396445 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aftpn 6207 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr : 05/08/2025 : 18/08/2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Amit Girdharbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 811/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

Section 50C inserted by Finance Act, 2016 wherein the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration, for transfer of capital asset are not the same value adopted or assessed or assessable by Stamp Valuation Authority I.T.A No. 811/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page

Dasa Shetty Kantha, Bangalore vs. ACIT Circle 6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 299/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Hari Pd. Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT
Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

view that on the date of JDA, the land property was transferred to builder/developer for construction which amount to transfer of capital assets as per the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is liable to offer capital in the year

Dasa Shetty Kantha, Bangalore vs. ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1926/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Hari Pd. Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT
Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

view that on the date of JDA, the land property was transferred to builder/developer for construction which amount to transfer of capital assets as per the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is liable to offer capital in the year

New Laxmi Enterprises, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2789/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 New Laxmi Enterprises The Income Tax Officer, 702, Laxmi Narayan Apartments, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai Rane Compound, Natvar Nagar Vs. Road No. 1, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai - 400060 (Pan : Aadfn2479B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073736005(1), Dated 26.02.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Officer, Mum-W- (404)(93), U/S. 147/148 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: " 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ered In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,58,23,513 Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is A Builder & The Flats Sold Were Stock In Trade Which Is Chargeable To Tax Under The Head Business Income & Not Capital Gains. 2) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered That Out Of The Addition Of Rs 1,58,23,513, Sale Value Of Flats Of Rs. 1,56,42,514

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 43CSection 44ASection 50C

transactions of sale of flats under the head business income, though Ld. AO has reopened the case by considering sale of flats as transfer of capital assets, bringing the same to tax under the head capital gain. According to the assessee, its account is subjected to tax audit u/s. 44AB

Gautam Chand Jain (HUF), Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 409/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Gautam Chand Jain(Huf) Vs. Deputy Commissioner Secunderabad Of Income Tax Pan : Aabhg7699J Circle-6(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 08/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri K.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263

said cancellation transaction. The Ld.PCIT observed that it is only a cancellation of the earlier sale deed and therefore not a transaction of transfer of capital asset resulting in long term capital gain/loss. Therefore, the compensation received by the assessee in the view of the Ld.PCIT is not a capital ... taken into consideration an important aspect of the matter 7 Gautam Chand Jain (HUF) that the transaction in question is not a transfer of capital asset, but it is only a cancellation of the earlier sale deed and therefore, the compensation received by the assessee over and above the refund

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1), Delhi, Cr Building vs. Indus Towers Limited, Gurgram

ITA 2805/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142Section 143(3)

defined under the Income Tax Act, 1961. That accordingly the provision of Section 47(iii) of the Act are attracted in respect of transfer of capital asset under a gift and consequently provision of Section 45 of the Act do not apply to such transfer. Without prejudice, to the above

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurugram, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

ITA 2607/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142Section 143(3)

defined under the Income Tax Act, 1961. That accordingly the provision of Section 47(iii) of the Act are attracted in respect of transfer of capital asset under a gift and consequently provision of Section 45 of the Act do not apply to such transfer. Without prejudice, to the above

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office vs. Vikas Mehra, the Mall

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

ITA 287/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Nagpal, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 49

properties of his deceased father and has not sold these properties during the year. There is no sale transaction and no transfer of capital asset. Section 49 under the head capital gains is not a charging section under the IT Act and there is sale either. In view of that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Poonam Khetrapal Singh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1000/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1000/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Poonam Khetrapal Singh, बनाम Circle 1(1), H. No 816, Sector 16, Chandigarh Chandigarh. Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anqps6367R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.7.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Kumar Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 295(2)(mm)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

ignoring the facts that assessee was owning more than one residential house other than new asset on the date of transfer of capital asset i.e. Plot No. 15, Pocket / Block C2, Sushant Lok-L Guru gram. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law on allowing benefit

Shobhana Dinesh Trivedi, Valsad vs. ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1042/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 45(1)Section 54

agreement. However the A.O. was of the view that as per Section 45(1) of the Act, the profit or gains arising from transfer of capital asset shall be deemed to be income of the assessee in the year in which transfer to place as provided ... correct in taking the view that as per Section 45(1) of the Act, the profit or gains arising from transfer of capital asset shall be deemed to be income of the assessee in the year in which the transfer took place as provided in section

Vinay Arun Joshi, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai-1, Mumbai

ITA 3721/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “F” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. G N International P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2851/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarg. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji Circle-10(2), Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Dcit, Vs. G. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-4, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Dadhur Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 68

against the full value of sale consideration received on ‘transfer of a capital asset’. The Learned CIT(A) observed that there was no transfer of capital asset which had happened in the instant case and accordingly the assessee is not entitled for deduction of indexed cost of acquisition resulting

G N International P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2676/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarg. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji Circle-10(2), Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Dcit, Vs. G. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-4, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Dadhur Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 68

against the full value of sale consideration received on ‘transfer of a capital asset’. The Learned CIT(A) observed that there was no transfer of capital asset which had happened in the instant case and accordingly the assessee is not entitled for deduction of indexed cost of acquisition resulting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shriprop Properties Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1283/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

also since both the sections are similarly worded with the difference being that section 50C is applicable in case of transfer of capital asset being land or building or both and section 43CA is for the transfer of asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Spl Shelters Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1273/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

also since both the sections are similarly worded with the difference being that section 50C is applicable in case of transfer of capital asset being land or building or both and section 43CA is for the transfer of asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both

Shriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1173/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

also since both the sections are similarly worded with the difference being that section 50C is applicable in case of transfer of capital asset being land or building or both and section 43CA is for the transfer of asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both