← All Phrases

“date of transfer”

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

The decision most relied on for date of transfer is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on date of transfer

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini
398 ITR 531 · 2017 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

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.

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT
365 ITR 389 · 2014 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

For claiming capital gains exemption under beneficial provisions like section 54, the 'date of transfer' can be the date of the agreement to sell, particularly when coupled with substantial advance consideration or an enforceable right, adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation to acknowledge the assessee's intent.

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana
340 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property by way of sale is legally valid only through a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance. Unregistered instruments like agreements to sell, General Power of Attorney, or wills do not transfer title or create an interest in the property.

CIT v. T.K. Dayalu
202 Taxmann 531 · 2011 · High Court
58
citing judgments

In a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), capital gains arise for chargeability to tax when the complete control over the property is passed to the developer, with the date of such transfer of control being relevant for determining the assessment year. This includes considerations of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

PCIT v. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd.
111 Taxmann.com 94 · 2019 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Prior to the incorporation of the proviso to section 43CA(1) with effect from 1st April 2019, section 43CA did not envisage any limit regarding the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration received by the assessee for the transfer of immovable property that was stock-in-trade.

CIT v. Ashaland Corporation
133 ITR 55 · 1982 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Income from the sale of immovable property, including any 'on-money' component, is taxable only when the sale is complete, marked by the execution and registration of the sale deed and/or transfer of possession to the buyer.

CIT v. R.L. Sood
245 ITR 727 · 2000 · High Court
42
citing judgments

Exemption under Section 54 for capital gains on a residential property is available even if the sale deed is not registered within the stipulated time, provided a substantial amount of consideration is paid, or the delay in completion/registration is beyond the assessee's control.

Judgments citing date of transfer

The ITO, Kochi vs. M/S.Reality Projects and Entertainments P. Ltd, Puducherry

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 116/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhito, Corporate Ward 2(2) Reality Projects & 5Th Floor, C.R. Building Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018 17, Kamaraj Salai [Pan: Aadcr1354A] Puducherry 605011 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------ None ------For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 226(3)Section 28Section 46ASection 53A

payment received from the Apl. Tahsildar was during the FY 2013-14. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to consider that on the effective date of transfer the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in force and not the RFCTLARR Act. 7. The CIT(A) failed to consider that CBDT circular No.36/2016

Manish Vijay Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Shri Sunder R Balmiki, Income Tax Officer 24(2)(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 234/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

Nature of income i.e. capital gain or business iii) Market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 and market value as on the date of transfer. 2.1. Ground Nos.15 to 20 are consequential in nature. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm and filed

Dharambir, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usdharambir Vs. Pr. Cit Village-Nakhrola, Naharpur, C.R. Building, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aumpd4924E (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee before the PCIT that such land was used for agricultural purposes during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer and, therefore, regardless of such agricultural land being urban land (falling within 8 kms of municipal limit), the exemption under s. 10(37) is still available

Asianet Star Communications Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

ITA 934/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Porus F Kaka, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

notice that the Courts have not only sanctioned the scheme in this case but have also not specified any other date as the date of transfer amalgamation. In such a situation, it would not be reasonable to say that the scheme of amalgamation takes effect on and from the date

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai vs. Romell Housing LLP, Mumbai

ITA 3935/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 253(4)Section 56(2)(x)

assessable as on the date of entering into the agreement for sale should be adopted instead of the value assessed as on the date of transfer (registration) of the property. The Assessing Officer ("AO") vide order dated 27.08.2021 passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144B of the Act disagreed

Saurabh Prasannavadan Vakil, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(4)Vadodara(Now Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1)), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 975/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 975/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बनाम/ Saurabh Prasannavadan Income Tax Officer Ward Vakil 1(2)(4) (Now Deputy Vs. E 402 Nilamber Commissioner Of Income Bellissimo, Vasna Bhayli Tax Road, Vadodara 391410, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpv8393C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Milin Mehta & Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Ketki Desai, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 26/09/2024 15/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 06.05.2024 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Original Return Of Income For A.Y. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,19,54,960/- & Subsequently A Revised Return With Total Income Of Rs.2,24,26,160/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta & Ms. Amrin
Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 50ESection 54E

deduction u/s 54EC to Rs. 50 lakhs without appreciating the fact that the investment in bonds was made within six months from date of transfer. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in restricting the deduction u/s 54EC ... Section 54EC of the Act, the assessee was required to invest the capital gains within a period of six months from the date of transfer of the long-term capital asset and that the quantum of investment was restricted to Rs.50 Lakhs only in one financial year

DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad vs. Gireesh Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 499/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dy. Cit Vs. Gireesh Infrastructure Circle 2(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadcg3003H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, DR
Section 68

failed to prove creditworthiness of creditors and also there are few cash deposits into bank account of the creditors immediately before the date of transfer of funds to the appellant. Therefore, opined that the assessee could not substantiate its explanation about the nature and source of credits and thus, made

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Nakul Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2833/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 54F

Section 54F(1) in as much as the assessee has purchased a residential house other than new asset within one year after the date of transfer of the original asset. 3 (c) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing

Nakul Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-24(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 54F

Section 54F(1) in as much as the assessee has purchased a residential house other than new asset within one year after the date of transfer of the original asset. 3 (c) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing

Ram Mangli Jassi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 2277/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2277/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Ram Mangli Jassi, 80/301, Sector I, Gole Market, R.K Ashram Marg, Diz Area, Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Apbpj-2828-P

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mishra, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority u/s. 50C(1) of the Act exceeds the fair market value of property as on the date of transfer. In the instant case the AO without seeking valuation report from the Valuation Officer made addition of the difference between the purchase price

Nirmal Singh, Ayodhya vs. ITO Ward-1, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assessed or assessable Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the fair market S.A. No.07/LKW/2024 Page 15 of 17 value of the property as on the date of transfer. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer failed to make reference to Valuation Officer, as mandated by the aforementioned provisions ... adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopting the value taken

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Bksps2554L Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Siva Jyothi Palam, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Bksps2554L Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

fact that the house property was registered on 17/12/2019 and therefore there was a time gap of more than 24 months between the date of transfer of capital asset and the date of 10 purchase of the new house property and denied exemption U/s. 54F of the Act. The only

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhaskar Gopichand Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4733/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54ESection 80CSection 80D

erred in allowing deduction u/s 54EC of the Act amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- by taking the date of transfer of asset as 12.03.2011 whereas the date of transfer was 22.04.2010 i.e. the date of first installment received by the assessee towards cancellation of allotment of flat. The appellant

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

additional evidences, more so, where the lower authorities have omitted to examine the factual aspect on comparable market value of goods/services on the date of transfer expected of them in law. …………………………………… 11 30. ……………… The additional evidences appear to bring comparative purchase prices of various products transacted between

Harivallabhdas Rajan Ramkrishna, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1010/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1010/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50ESection 54E

Rajan Ramkrishna vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 – was required to invest the capital gains within a period of six months from the date of transfer of the long term capital asset and that the quantum of investment was restricted to Rs.50 Lakhs only in one financial year ... Section 54EC of the Act were satisfied as the assessee had made the investment within the period of six months from the date of transfer and the quantum of investment also did not exceed Rs.50 Lakhs in each of the financial year. The Ld. AR contended that

M/S Multitech Solutions, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. -31, Kolkata

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

ITA 1443/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Additional CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

appellant produced such details, the AO noticed that lot of cash deposits were made into the Creditors' bank account mysteriously just before the date of transfer of loan to the appellant firm. It was analysed carefully on each Creditor's account. The AO observed that in all those cases except

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sheriar Phirojsha Irani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2835/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisandwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

claimed. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of all residential properties owned by him on the date of transfer of the original asset and also furnish a note on the eligibility to claim the deduction as per the provisions of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted ... that he does not independently own any other residential property on the date of transfer other than Mehta Villa. The assessee further submitted that he was a co-owner of four properties from where he used to receive the rent. After considering the submission of the assessee, a notice

Sannidhi Sri Ramachandra Murthy (HUF), Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

submitted that, he relied on the CBDT Circular No. 791 dated 02.06.2000 wherein for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 54EA/54EB/54EC, the date of transfer shall be considered as the date on which the stock-in-trade is sold and not on the date of conversion of the capital ... sale of stock-in-trade as his business income and has filed return of income accordingly. However, the Ld.Pr.CIT has disputed the date of transfer, without considering the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act, Ld.AR contended. Ld.AR further pleaded that since the allowability of deductions with respect

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

Sanghvi Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date ... original asset; or (iii) constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer

Mohan Ballabh Sharma (Through Legal Heir Kanhaiya Lal Sharma) Heir, Baharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to costs

ITA 650/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 5(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

Even details with regard to the formation of the Brij Trust, its objectives, details of transfers from the Trust to appellant, date of transfer etc., were not furnished in course of appellate proceedings in spite of several opportunities given to the appellant. It is noticed that the appellant time ... details with regard to the formation of Brij Trust, its objective, details of transfer from trust to the assessee, date of transfer were not furnished during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings. From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench feels that since