← 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

Mukesh Kumar Jajoriya, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO WD 2(3), Jpr, Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 51/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 54B

asset must be land 2. The assessee transferring land must be an individual or HUF 3. In the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, the land was used by the assess being an individual All his parents were by HUF for agricultural purposes. 4. Within a period ... years after the date of transfer of the asset, the assessee should have purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes. 5. Where the capital gain is not utilized in the purchase of the new land before furnishing the ROI it should be deposited in an account under

Anil Bhardwaj, Zambia vs. DCIT-ACIT-Int-Tax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1250/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Kumar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54Section 54F

this sub-section shall apply where – (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 three years 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

Shuvro Chattaraj, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

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

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

noticed that the assessee claimed STCG on both the years on the basis of date of transfer as per section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Subsequently the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54EC and 54F on the basis of the fact that date of transfer of the same property ... date of registration, thus claiming and allowing the date of transfer as the date of registration was not in order for availing exemptions u/s. 54EC and 54F in the FY. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 when the assessee himself claimed in two consecutive assessment years

Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Coimbatore vs. Acot, Ncc-5, Coimbatore

ITA 690/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.690/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Race Course, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641018, [Pan: Adjpp4946N] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-5, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2029-20/1026334108(1) Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

For Appellant: Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142ASection 142A(1)Section 142A(6)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 250

basis in Shri Radhakrishna Mills Limited and also the investment made by the Assesse for Purchasing residential house within 1 year of the date of transfer of original asset. Therefore requirement of Section 54F with reference to purchase of residential house within 1 year of transfer of original asset

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 99/COCH/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

assessee on 29.12.2006 (inadvertently mentioned as 29.02.2006 in satisfaction note). These three dates i.e., date of search which is on 02.08.2006, date of transferring of the material pertaining to assessee i.e., on 29.12.2006 and recording of satisfaction on 14.05.2007 would prove beyond doubt that the impugned satisfaction note has been ... capacity of the AO of the searched person. Otherwise, the AO could have recorded the satisfaction note before 29.12.2006 i.e the date of transferring the material belonging to assessee for assuming jurisdiction over assessee as per the mandates of section 153C of the Act. It is now settled position

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 98/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

assessee on 29.12.2006 (inadvertently mentioned as 29.02.2006 in satisfaction note). These three dates i.e., date of search which is on 02.08.2006, date of transferring of the material pertaining to assessee i.e., on 29.12.2006 and recording of satisfaction on 14.05.2007 would prove beyond doubt that the impugned satisfaction note has been ... capacity of the AO of the searched person. Otherwise, the AO could have recorded the satisfaction note before 29.12.2006 i.e the date of transferring the material belonging to assessee for assuming jurisdiction over assessee as per the mandates of section 153C of the Act. It is now settled position

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

assessee on 29.12.2006 (inadvertently mentioned as 29.02.2006 in satisfaction note). These three dates i.e., date of search which is on 02.08.2006, date of transferring of the material pertaining to assessee i.e., on 29.12.2006 and recording of satisfaction on 14.05.2007 would prove beyond doubt that the impugned satisfaction note has been ... capacity of the AO of the searched person. Otherwise, the AO could have recorded the satisfaction note before 29.12.2006 i.e the date of transferring the material belonging to assessee for assuming jurisdiction over assessee as per the mandates of section 153C of the Act. It is now settled position

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 100/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

assessee on 29.12.2006 (inadvertently mentioned as 29.02.2006 in satisfaction note). These three dates i.e., date of search which is on 02.08.2006, date of transferring of the material pertaining to assessee i.e., on 29.12.2006 and recording of satisfaction on 14.05.2007 would prove beyond doubt that the impugned satisfaction note has been ... capacity of the AO of the searched person. Otherwise, the AO could have recorded the satisfaction note before 29.12.2006 i.e the date of transferring the material belonging to assessee for assuming jurisdiction over assessee as per the mandates of section 153C of the Act. It is now settled position

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

assessee on 29.12.2006 (inadvertently mentioned as 29.02.2006 in satisfaction note). These three dates i.e., date of search which is on 02.08.2006, date of transferring of the material pertaining to assessee i.e., on 29.12.2006 and recording of satisfaction on 14.05.2007 would prove beyond doubt that the impugned satisfaction note has been ... capacity of the AO of the searched person. Otherwise, the AO could have recorded the satisfaction note before 29.12.2006 i.e the date of transferring the material belonging to assessee for assuming jurisdiction over assessee as per the mandates of section 153C of the Act. It is now settled position

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 461/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

assessee on 29.12.2006 (inadvertently mentioned as 29.02.2006 in satisfaction note). These three dates i.e., date of search which is on 02.08.2006, date of transferring of the material pertaining to assessee i.e., on 29.12.2006 and recording of satisfaction on 14.05.2007 would prove beyond doubt that the impugned satisfaction note has been ... capacity of the AO of the searched person. Otherwise, the AO could have recorded the satisfaction note before 29.12.2006 i.e the date of transferring the material belonging to assessee for assuming jurisdiction over assessee as per the mandates of section 153C of the Act. It is now settled position

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 460/COCH/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

assessee on 29.12.2006 (inadvertently mentioned as 29.02.2006 in satisfaction note). These three dates i.e., date of search which is on 02.08.2006, date of transferring of the material pertaining to assessee i.e., on 29.12.2006 and recording of satisfaction on 14.05.2007 would prove beyond doubt that the impugned satisfaction note has been ... capacity of the AO of the searched person. Otherwise, the AO could have recorded the satisfaction note before 29.12.2006 i.e the date of transferring the material belonging to assessee for assuming jurisdiction over assessee as per the mandates of section 153C of the Act. It is now settled position

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 459/COCH/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

assessee on 29.12.2006 (inadvertently mentioned as 29.02.2006 in satisfaction note). These three dates i.e., date of search which is on 02.08.2006, date of transferring of the material pertaining to assessee i.e., on 29.12.2006 and recording of satisfaction on 14.05.2007 would prove beyond doubt that the impugned satisfaction note has been ... capacity of the AO of the searched person. Otherwise, the AO could have recorded the satisfaction note before 29.12.2006 i.e the date of transferring the material belonging to assessee for assuming jurisdiction over assessee as per the mandates of section 153C of the Act. It is now settled position

Seema Ramesh Gianchandani C/O. Deepak Moorjani, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.896/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Shri Seema Ramesh Gianchandani, The Ito, C/O. Deepak Moorjani, International Taxation Ward- No.9, Agastya Nagar, 1(1), Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Bozpg 1404 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 148Section 50C(1)Section 55A

assessee than that declared by him, Sub-section (1) provides that the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer shall be taken to be the full value of the consideration which has accrued or has been received by the assessee. The onus of establishing that

Nandagopal Nandhakumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 172/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Mr.Nandagopal Nandhakumar, The Acit, Flat No.103, Ncc-2, Smuka Eagles Nest Apartment, Coimbatore. Kpk Nagar, Kalapatti S.O. Vellanaipatty, Coimbatore – 641 048. [Pan: Abmpn 3044 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

even though transferred assets on 29.05.2013, he had not acquired a new house/agricultural land within the time limit of 2 years from the date of transfer of asset. Further, the assessee had invested only Rs.11,82,765/- u/s.54B of the Act within the due date for filing the return ... assessee transferred assets on 29.05.2013, he didn’t acquire any new house/agricultural land within the time limit of two years from the date of transfer of assets. Further, the assessee had invested only Rs.11,82,765/- u/s.54B of the Act within the due date for filing the return of income

Ravi Jakhar, Mumbai vs. Ass. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3299/MUM/2024[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Fenil Bhatt, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R
Section 2Section 234BSection 234CSection 48Section 54FSection 69

Short-term capital asset" means a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than (thirty-six) months immediately preceding the date of transfer: Provided that in the case of a share held in a company (or any other security listed in a recognised stock exchange in India

Kiran Ashok Desai, Mumbai vs. The PCIT Mumbai-19, Mumbai

In the result, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed and order passed by the Ld

ITA 1794/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalkiran Ashok Desai, D-3, Triveni Building, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Maharashtra 400 066 Pan: Aabpd6275H ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit R. No. 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed

Akshay Infrasys Industries Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

quantum of work assigned to the assessee. As such the date of issuing the debit note and credit note does not represent the date of transfer of building material and the finished goods. The debit note issued by M/s Symphonia and Graphicus Pvt. Ltd. has been considered in a accounts

Nalapad Properties, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 1297/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, ITP &For Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 45

ITA Nos.1297/Bang/2024 & SP 33/Bang/2024 Nalapad Properties, Bangalore ITA No.1298/Bang/2024 & SP 34/Bang/2024 Nalapad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bangalore Page 2 of

Shabbir Ahmed Ahmed Ali, Nagpur vs. National E Assesment Centry, Delhi

ITA 112/NAG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 54

Capital Gain Less: Exemption: Under section 54 – ` 34,05,731 invested in Residential Property (With a period of 1 year before the date of transfer / sale) 0” Therefore, notice u/s.142(1) of the I.T. Act issued to the assessee on 05/03/2021. The assessee was asked to furnish evidences of indexed

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 3, Mumbai vs. Kuwait Investment Authority, Mumbai

ITA 478/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh Irani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 154Section 2

that in the assessee's case, the period of holding of capital assets (ie listed shares) as on the date immediately preceding the date of transfer is exactly 12 months and hence the capital gain arising therefrom is liable to be treated as short term capital gain ... would reveal that the transfer or sale is treated as a cut off point, to apply the test. The expression 'immediately preceding the date of transfer' is a cut off point for determining and deciding the period during which the asset was held by an assessee. The said expression does