“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

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6081/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

Holdings Limited respectfully did not constitute an “undertaking” as prescribed in Explanation 1 of section 2(19AA) and hence said assignment amounted to transfer of capital asset u/s 2(47) of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not objectively adjudicating upon ground

Siel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6301/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

Siel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6300/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

M/S Balaji Developers, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 375/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 96

that it is not applicable to the assessee firm. 6.14 Further, in the case of assessee, the gain has arisen not out of transfer of capital asset. It is out of transfer of stock in trade. Here the assessee firm has come in to existence with the motive of trading

Anand Kedarnath Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2474/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50CSection 53A

would be applicable, which provides that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of capital asset is not the same, then the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp duty valuation authority on the date of agreement

Vikas Gupta, Indore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 186/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Neha JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

computation of long-term capital gain. It provides that from the full value of the consideration received or accrued to an assessee on transfer of capital assets, the cost of acquisition, cost of any improvement and any expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer are to be debited. This expression ... this exercise was required to be conducted in a regular assessment under section 143(3), but that assessment attained finality. The factum of transfer of capital asset was brought to the notice of the revenue by all these assessees, therefore, it is not a new discovery of fact during

Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 263

which mentions the indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement, and indexed cost of any other expenses wholly and exclusively related to transfer of Capital Asset. No supporting documents or explanation with regard to the deductions related to the transfer have been called by the AO. This is clear

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Pvr Tourist Home, Cochin

ITA 428/COCH/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 48Section 50Section 50(1)Section 50A

Tourist Home books of accounts. If so read, it becomes clear that even when he firm is in existence and there is transfer of capital assets, it comes within the expression "otherwise" as the object of the amending Act was to remove the loopholes which existed, whereby capital gain ... this, Rs.7.4 crores has been paid to the present assessee and Rs. 1.00 crore to the partner Shri P.A. Francis. Therefore, there is transfer of capital asset within the scope of section 45(4) of the Act by the firm to Shri Poonghat Shrinivas who acquired the absolute right over

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik vs. Rajendra Rasiklal Shah, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1015/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 53Section 54

property and not in respect of provisions of income tax act laying down any proposition about capital asset defined u/s 2(14) or transfer of capital asset u/s 2(47) of the Income tax Act. The appellant has submitted that by entering into agreement to purchase, the proposed purchaser acquires ... property and not in respect of provisions of income tax act laying down any proposition about capital asset defined u/s 2(14) or transfer of capital asset u/s 2(47) of the Income tax Act is supported by ratio laid down in the decision of Honourable Mumbai ITAT

Sai Keerti Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 299/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी. सं / Ita Nos.296, 297, 298, 299, 300 & 301 /Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Section 132Section 153A

perusal of the case record, we feel that the matter requires fresh adjudication for determination of capital gain arising out of the transfer of capital asset, which as per the case of the assessee is covered by the decision of jurisdiction High Court in the case referred W.P. Nos.11032

Sanjeev Kumar Kathuria, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

case the liability to pay capital gains tax would not arise. Liability to pay capital gains tax, however, would arise when the assessee transfers the capital asset acquired under a gift or will for valuable consideration. [Para 10] The mode and the manner of computing the capital gains is provided ... gift or will or an irrevocable trust would not be covered by the provisions of section 45(1) and taking into consideration the transfer of capital asset cannot be computed in terms of section 45. Thus, the present transfer of property has to be examined in terms of section

Sahibzada Timber and Ply Private Limited, Mohali vs. DCIT, ACIT Central Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 50C

date of such receipts shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer of capital asset. In this situation also the Assessing Officer would be required to compute the fair market value of the asset and, therefore, a reference

JCIT(OSD), Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (India) Ltd, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

order to levy capital gains tax on the Appellant, it is a condition precedent that the alleged capital gains must arise from transfer of capital assets by the Appellant to its shareholders, which condition is not satisfied in the present case. 1.7 Without prejudice to above, on the facts ... appreciate that even if demerger of undertaking is treated as taxable transfer under section 45 of the Act, the consideration for the transfer of capital asset is what the transferor receives in lieu of the asset he parts with, namely, money or money's worth and it cannot

Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

DCIT, Mum vs. Shelter Developers, Mum

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 3753/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)

transferred. If the compensation or damage is received on account of right to sue, it cannot be held that it is a transfer of capital asset. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Abbasbhoy D Deghghamwala reported in 195 ITR 28 (Bom) wherein, the issue

Narsi Reddy Komatireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 121/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, SR-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 45

lieu of the same, the assessee and his wife were allotted one villa each. Thus it satisfied all the conditions for transfer of capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Act r.w.s. 53A of Transfer of Property Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with this issue

Narsi Reddy Komatireddy, Hyderabad vs. Srig. Santosh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 120/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, SR-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 45

Surendra Kumar Mishra, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ALLD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

wholly erroneous as being inconsistent with the facts of the case and applicable thereto. 14. BECAUSE 'surplus' arising out of 'transfer' of 'Capital asset', without prejudice to the contention raised in grounds no. 8 to 13 above, should have been subjected to assessment as 'long term capital gain', instead ... wholly erroneous and inconsistent with the facts of the case. Furthermore, it was submitted that the surplus arising out of transfer of capital asset should have been subjected to assessment as, ‘long term capital gain’ instead of, ‘short term capital gain’ as had been made / upheld by the authorities below

Johnson and Johnson Private Limited (As Successor of Nr Jet Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1756/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr. DR

Section 112Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 250Section 50

assets.” 11. Therefore, the provisions of section 50 of the Act provide for the procedure for computation of capital gains in case of transfer of capital asset which forms part of the block of assets and in respect of which depreciation has been allowed under the Act. The said intent

Venkataram Spinning Mills Private Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 87/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ld.DR. Satyasai Rath, CIT-

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45

agricultural land which are transferred by the assessee will not under purview of section 2(47) of the I.T.Act and there is no transfer of capital asset more while saying that the land are under CRDA and these lands are not taken by the AP Sate Govt. Hence, long term ... through any joint development agreement, in such circumstances, in our opinion, such transfer like the case before us cannot be considered as a transfer of capital asset. 80. Coming to the other ground relating to granting of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and applicability of section