← 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

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1428/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

concluding that transfer from Shareholder's account to Policy Account And Shown As Part Of 'surplus' in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable u/s 44 of the Act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule? 2. Whether on the facts ... concluding that transfer from Shareholder's account to Policy Account And Shown As Part Of surplus' in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable us 44 of the Act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule?" 2. "Whether on the facts

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1427/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

concluding that transfer from Shareholder's account to Policy Account And Shown As Part Of 'surplus' in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable u/s 44 of the Act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule? 2. Whether on the facts ... concluding that transfer from Shareholder's account to Policy Account And Shown As Part Of 'surplus' in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable u/s 44 of the Act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule?" 2. "Whether on the facts

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1392/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

concluding that transfer from Shareholder's account to Policy Account And Shown As Part Of 'surplus' in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable u/s 44 of the Act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule? 2. Whether on the facts ... concluding that transfer from Shareholder's account to Policy Account And Shown As Part Of surplus' in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable us 44 of the Act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule?" 2. "Whether on the facts

Harshad Kumar and Bros, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 18 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 408/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Ld. A.R.a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. D.R
Section 250Section 45Section 69B

carved out certain exception/provision such as “where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of capital asset are not same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp duty authority on the date of agreement may be taken

M/S. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 969/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)

assessee. (ii) Circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987 clearly provides that the provisions of section 45(4) applies only when there is a transfer of capital asset by a firm on dissolution or otherwise. He submits that there is no transfer of any of the capital asset from the partnership firm ... assessee company to the extent of Rs.49 crores. The assessee objected to this. The contention of the assessee that there is no transfer of capital asset was rejected. It was further held that no restriction was placed on withdrawal of account credited to the account of the partners is also

M/S. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 968/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Netrapal M S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)

assessee. (ii) Circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987 clearly provides that the provisions of section 45(4) applies only when there is a transfer of capital asset by a firm on dissolution or otherwise. He submits that there is no transfer of any of the capital asset from the partnership firm ... assessee company to the extent of Rs.49 crores. The assessee objected to this. The contention of the assessee that there is no transfer of capital asset was rejected. It was further held that no restriction was placed on withdrawal of account credited to the account of the partners is also

Income Tax Officer-Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1495/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

that there was no acquisition of capital asset neither was the expenditure incurred for enduring benefits and further there is no relinquishment or transfer of capital asset to any third party. The relevant extract of the decision in the case of ACE Designers Ltd. (supra) which has dealt with ... 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

Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1493/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

that there was no acquisition of capital asset neither was the expenditure incurred for enduring benefits and further there is no relinquishment or transfer of capital asset to any third party. The relevant extract of the decision in the case of ACE Designers Ltd. (supra) which has dealt with ... 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

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1159/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

that there was no acquisition of capital asset neither was the expenditure incurred for enduring benefits and further there is no relinquishment or transfer of capital asset to any third party. The relevant extract of the decision in the case of ACE Designers Ltd. (supra) which has dealt with ... 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

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1158/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

that there was no acquisition of capital asset neither was the expenditure incurred for enduring benefits and further there is no relinquishment or transfer of capital asset to any third party. The relevant extract of the decision in the case of ACE Designers Ltd. (supra) which has dealt with ... 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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru vs. Nalapad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bengaluru

ITA 1959/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Respondent: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R
Section 153C

ITA No.1958/Bang/2024 M/s. Nalapad Properties, Bangalore & ITA No.1959/Bang/2024 M/s. Nalapad Hotels & Convention Centre, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru vs. Nalapad Properties, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1958/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 153CSection 45(2)

coordinate bench of Madras in the case of M/s. Essrope Mills ltd. in ITA No.2256/Mad/2012 dated 11.7.2013, wherein held that the gain on transfer of capital asset up to the date of conversion in to stock has to be assessed under the head capital gain and the gain in respect

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 968/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

such tenant, farmer or lessee. 13. Now whether the damage received by the assessee can be said to be in respect of transfer of capital asset and if there was a breach of contract and the assessee received damages on account of mere 'right to sue' for the damages ... damages' have distinct connotations. The former in the context of ss.45 and 48 would connote payment of a sum of money to secure transfer of capital asset; the latter would suggest payment to make amends for loss or injury occasioned on the breach of contract or tort. Both s.45

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

such tenant, farmer or lessee. 13. Now whether the damage received by the assessee can be said to be in respect of transfer of capital asset and if there was a breach of contract and the assessee received damages on account of mere 'right to sue' for the damages ... damages' have distinct connotations. The former in the context of ss.45 and 48 would connote payment of a sum of money to secure transfer of capital asset; the latter would suggest payment to make amends for loss or injury occasioned on the breach of contract or tort. Both s.45

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Rasik Kunverji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1000/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

such tenant, farmer or lessee. 13. Now whether the damage received by the assessee can be said to be in respect of transfer of capital asset and if there was a breach of contract and the assessee received damages on account of mere 'right to sue' for the damages ... damages' have distinct connotations. The former in the context of ss.45 and 48 would connote payment of a sum of money to secure transfer of capital asset; the latter would suggest payment to make amends for loss or injury occasioned on the breach of contract or tort. Both s.45

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Jt.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 267/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr DR & Sh
Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)Section 72

right under a contract, was capable of being assigned. It was, therefore, a property and thereby a capital asset. There was transfer of capital asset when the transaction was squared by an opposite corresponding transaction and similarly when squaring up was on expiry of the contract, it should be treated

Ashok Gupta HUF, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off for

ITA 52/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 56(2)(ix)

amount can be taxed under this section only when the assesse has forfeited the amount on cancellation of the agreement to sale of transfer of capital assets during the year under consideration. However no evidence has been placed on record by the respective appellant that there was an actual encroachment

Manisha Ashutosh Shewalkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 67/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234A

Capital Asset”. It is a trite law that to thrust upon the chargeability of capital gain under section 45 of the Act, transfer of capital asset is sine qua non which is conspicuously absent here. Hence the entire addition of ` 1,11,50,582, is directed to be deleted. Thus

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2489/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-11(1), Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited Kolkata Room No 504, Woodburn Aayakar Bhawan, 6Thfloor, P-7, Central, 5A,Bibhabati Bose, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Sarani Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 Westbengal-700020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm1113E Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Smt. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 48

Provisions of Section 48 of the Act as per which the expenses which are not wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with transfer of capital assets are not deductible in computing the capital gain and ignoring the fact that PMS fees is indirectly related to equity or derivative transactions

Kalindi Jayendra Ranpara Rajkot, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot

ITA 125/RJT/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.125/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Hybrid Hearing) Kalindi Jayendra Ranpara. Vs. The Ito Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot. Shrungar Jewellers, Soni Bazar Main Road, Rajkot-360001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpr6315Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 274Section 50C

with regard to the valuation of the property transferred. We observe that if the consideration received or accruing as a result of a transfer of capital asset being the land or building or both is less than the value adopted by authority (in the case of assessee