“date of transfer”

Capital GainsSection 2(47)Section 2(47)965 judgments

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Sunrise Asian Ltd in his Dmat Account on\n28.06.2013. These shares were sold on 08.09.2014 i.e. after more than\n14 months from the date of transfer in Dmat account.\n1.7 AO on Page 25 of his order raised a doubt that:-\nPage 16 of 25\nVijay Kothari\nITA No.267/Ind/2024 ... that we were informed that P. Saji\nTextiles Ltd was having more than 6000 shares in its account before\n22.10.2011 i.e. the date of transfer of amount. The share certificate also\nconfirms this fact that the certificate in question bearing certificate no\n944 was issued in lieu of certificate

ABDUL SALAM SHAIK,PILER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 1371/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Sale consideration on sale of immovable property in the name of his\nwife Smt. Reshma Shaik, during the period from 2015 to the date of transfer of\nthe property to the buyer on 13.10.2016. Smt. Reshma, at the time of filing the\nIncome Tax Return, have declared the long term ... Sale consideration on sale of\nimmovable property in the name of his wife Smt. Reshma, during the period from\n2015 to the date of transfer of the property to the buyer on 15.11.2016.\nCIT(A) Decision:\nThe arguments of the appellant are considered. The appellant stated that the amount\nwas

VIJAY KRISHNAJI SAWANT ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8991/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvijay Krishnaji Sawant Income Tax Officer-32(2)(1) Vijay Niwas, Ceaser Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Opp. Bombay Cambridge School, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Amboli, Andheri Railway Station S.O., Mumbai-400 058 Pan/Gir No. Aapps 7027 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Ankit Tiwari Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Tiwari

Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

year under consideration, based on the registered transfer deed, the date of execution of registered transfer deed has to be reckoned as the date of transfer from which the stipulated period for investment has to be counted. Since, the assessee has invested within the stipulated period, he is eligible

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

specified period will be charged to tax under Section 45 in the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of original asset expired. The period of three years is stipulated as this is the longer period specified in the sub-section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti

Section 49Section 54Section 54E

term capital asset being a residential house and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer purchased, or within three years constructed, a residential house, the capital gain shall be exempt to the extent specified in the section. 25. Thus ... statutory requirement under section 54 clearly stipulates that the assessee must have “purchased” a residential house within two years from the date of transfer of the original asset. In the absence of a registered conveyance deed or purchase deed showing the actual purchase of the property, the mere existence

ARVINDER SINGH SAHNI,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 6778/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR.)

Section 250Section 54

date, on which transfer took place, or was supposed to construct a residential house within a period of three years, after the date of transfer. As the Assessee has purchased the property within a period of one year before transferring the old property on which capital gain has been acquired ... orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that though the Assessee had purchased a property within one year prior to the date of transfer of the old property, on which capital gain has been earned. However it is a fact that, possession of the new property was supposed

ROMABEN KEYUR THAKORE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ANANDIBEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

Section 144Section 148Section 54F

previous year is attracted when another residential house has been purchased within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer or has been constructed within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the residential house. It is not in dispute ... said Act. It is not a requisite of Section 54 that construction could not have commenced prior to the date of transfer of the asset resulting in I.T.A No. 2605/Ahd/2025 Page no 6 A.Y. 2015-16 capital gain. If the amount of capital gain is greater than the cost

HARJINDER SINGH,DERABASSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 795/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJ PAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak Malhotra, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 56(2)(x)

nature of land sold was not agricultural & was not being utilised for agricultural purpose for the preceding two years prior to the date of transfer, whereas the land transferred by the assessee on 03.02.2010 was agricultural in nature & was genuinely utilised for the agricultural activities. 3. That ... erred in not considering the date of agreement to sell, i.e, 03.02.2010 as the date of transfer of the capital asset, thus ignoring the fact that once the agreement to sell in respect of immovable property is executed, the vendor is restrained from conducting any activity on the said land

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1686/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: MS Sree Lekha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares\nand equity shares where such dividends have not been declared\nbefore the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company;\n(iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting\nfigure is negative, other

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. VARUN JAISINGH ASHER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 8251/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Shengde, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(x)

tenancy right is a valid consideration. There is nothing on record to show that any other residential property held by the appellant on date of transfer. As, flat qualifies as investment in residential house, conditions to claim exemption u/s section 54F stands satisfied. As flat received in exchange for surrender

NIRMALABEN KAMLESHBHAI CONTRACTOR,VADODARA vs. ASSTT. UNIT,CURRENT JURIS.-THE ITO,WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblenirmalaben Kamleshbhai Assessment Unit, Vs. Contractor, Income Tax Department, At & Post Sama Gam, Current Jurisdiction Ao Near Gujarati School, Income Tax Officer, Jalaram Mandir, Ward 1(3)(1) Chhani Rd., Vadodara. Vadodara-390024. [Pan : Amipc4384 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 50CSection 54E

deduction u/s.54EC of the Income Tax Act thereby stating that assessee received an amount of Rs.3,58,00,000/- as on 13.07.2015 i.e date of transfer whereas the investment made by the assessee on 11.04.2018 in the Rural Electrification Corporation limited bond only. Thus, the assessee failed to make investment

BADAMI DEVI ,BARMER vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 678/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebadami Devi Income Tax Officer, M/S Sbl & Co Llp Ward No. -1 Barmer. (Chartered Accountant) E-75, Kalpatru Shopping Center, Opp. Bioscope Cinemas, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan–342003. Pan No. Aaopd1969R Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A) Panaji, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Jcit (A)] Dated 28.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 68

ground for treating the same as unexplained money. In the present case the cash amounts has been deposited even much before the date of transfer the amount by way of cheque as loan to the account of Assessee. 13. Considering the factual matrix and following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

lands at Sonegaon for `. 32,00,000/– on 28.12.2010 and for `. 18,00,000/– on 12.03.2010. The agriculture land was purchased prior to date of transfer. The claim of exemption under section 54B was not allowable in this case. The condition of section 54B was not fulfilled. The ld. PCIT

RAJESH SALUJA,MUMBAI vs. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7177/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

which includes civil work, fittings, fixtures\nand allied works and the same was expended within the statutory period of two years from\nthe date of transfer of the original asset which was in accordance with section 54F of the\nAct. The Ld. AR further stated that the assessee had furnished ... section shall apply where-\n(a) the assessee,—\n(i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset,\non the date of transfer of the original asset; or\n(ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within\na period of one year after

SIDDHARTH BHASKAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-27, NEW MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

ITA 3327/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Section 263Section 54F

ntaxable without considering that A.O. had considered\nAssessee has not more than one residential flat, other than the\nnew flat on the date of transfer of the original asset.\n6. The Appellant prays that, the Order u/s.263 of the Income-\ntax Act dated 24.04.2025 passed by Principal Commissioner of\nIncome ... nwhich prescribes that assessee could not “own more than\none residential house other than the new asset on the date\nof transfer of the original asset\"\n4. In this regard the assessee categorically mentioned\nthat with regard to deduction of Rs. 39,96,80,216/- u/s\n54F

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 149/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 54F(1)

deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act by holding that assessee is having more than one residential house property as on the date of transfer and thus, is disqualified for entitlement of claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The said disallowance was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) by observing that ... evidences were filed by the assessee in support of the claim that all the other properties owned by the assessee as on the date of transfer and alleged as residential properties were commercial in nature. 9. Before us, assessee filed additional evidences in the shape of identity proofs and affidavits

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar

Section 4Section 43C

section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property ... cannot be section 43CA. the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has to be construed in accordance applied and the date of transfer of property has to be construed in accordance applied and the date

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5319/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar

Section 4Section 43C

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2964/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Respondent: \nShri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54B

facts on record.\n15. In view of the above facts and discussions carried out, the character of this\nland, as on the date of transfer i.e., 7th December, 2015, is agricultural land and\nthe revenue records also prove that the agricultural land was put to use. \nMoreover, this has another

SAR AUTO PRODUCTS LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result impugned order in set aside and, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 668/RJT/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

impugned faceless appellate order has been passed without lawful transfer of jurisdiction u/s 250(6B), as the appeal was not pending on the date of transfer to NFAC. Sar Auto Products Ltd. 3. Jurisdictional Error: The learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-12, Mumbai has erred in law and on facts in passing ... impugned faceless appellate order has been passed without lawful transfer of jurisdiction u/s 250(6B), as the appeal was not pending on the date of transfer to NFAC. (ii) On the contrary, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). and fairly admitted

Showing 1–20 of 965 · Page 1 of 49

...