“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

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

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

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

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

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

Sh. Devender Kumar, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward -1, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; ii. such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu undivided family or individual or a parent of his; iii. such transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition

Sh. Baljinder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT, Chandigarh -1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 167/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Brajbhumi Nirmaan Private Limited, Salt Lake vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madanappa Raghuveer, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

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

Kesavan Vanithamani, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

ITA 2451/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 54F

note that the Appellant was in possession of only one residential property and one Tannery, other than the new asset, at the date of transfer of the original asset thereby not warranting the applicability of the First Proviso to Section 54F of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought ... contention that this property cannot be considered under Proviso to Section 54F is not acceptable. Since the appellant held two properties on the date of transfer of land, the appellant is not entitled to deduction u/s 54F in respect of new investment. Therefore, the action

Narottam Atmaram Warde, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

Even if the land was later used for development, the law is settled that what matters is the character of land on the date of transfer, not future use. Honourable Bombay High Court in Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT 209 ITR 946 held that Potential non-agricultural use or purchaser

Kishore Anand Shetty, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 4975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

section 54F, since the agreement for purchase of the new house was dated 29.03.2011, which was more than one year prior to the date of transfer of the original asset, i.e., 02.09.2013. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, firstly, on the premise that for the purposes of section ... date of sale of the original asset on 02.09.2013; and second, that the assessee owned more than one residential house on the date of transfer and therefore was not eligible for exemption under section 54F. admitted factual record. 16. The learned counsel submitted that during the year under consideration

Kishore Anand Shetty, Mumbai vs. Circle-32(2), Mumbai

ITA 4974/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

section 54F, since the agreement for purchase of the new house was dated 29.03.2011, which was more than one year prior to the date of transfer of the original asset, i.e., 02.09.2013. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, firstly, on the premise that for the purposes of section ... date of sale of the original asset on 02.09.2013; and second, that the assessee owned more than one residential house on the date of transfer and therefore was not eligible for exemption under section 54F. The learned counsel submitted that both these grounds are contrary to the settled legal position

Sumanth Badiga, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 628/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.628/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sumanth Badiga, The Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 004. Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Ahqpb8508F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessee By : Ca C S Subrahmanyam & Sri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate िधजस् व द्वधिध/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणध की तधिीख/Pronouncement: 06.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA C S Subrahmanyam and Sri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

capital gains which is not allowable if the assessee owns more than one residential house other than the new house as on the date of transfer of original asset. The Pr. CIT noted that the assessee was having two residential houses, one in Dubai and another in USA and therefore ... assessee does not own more than one residential house in 5 ITA.No.628/Hyd./2025 India other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset. The other two houses are owned and held outside India and therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/sec.54F

Zafar Iqbal, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Siliguri

ITA 1170/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had purchased a residential house property within two years from the date of transfer of his old landed property, and he was eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT (A) ought not to have ... also on the allegation that the appellant was already having two house properties at Kanpur on the date of transfer of his old assets as above. The appellant had clarified at serial No. 4 (four) of his written submission dated 26.11.2028 before the Ld. AO that he was having only

Venkata Sujatha Chruvupalli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR

Section 124(3)(a)Section 127(2)Section 129Section 143(2)

above, it is evident that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is dated 24.09.2018 i.e., prior to the date of transfer of jurisdiction on 29.09.2018. Although the said notice bears the seal and signature of the JAO, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention

Azizul Ghani, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer - ITO Ward 63(3) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2962/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

Friends Colony, New Delhi was substantially acquired and constructed well within the statutory period of 3 years from the date of transfer, and the registration of deed for ½ share was delayed by a mere 15 days due to procedural technicalities, despite substantial payments already made prior to the expiry ... income tax are: (i) The assessee should have purchased a residential house in India either one year before or two years after the date of transfer of the residential house which resulted in capital gain or alternatively constructed a new residential house in India within a period of three years

Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(4), Lucknow -New, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the fair market 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

Zahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 8244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalzahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh A/10 Jai Hind Society, Asalpha Gahtkopar Link, Ro Mohili Village Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 ............... Appellant Pan: Buups3134C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Ms. Shama Mohd. Ismail Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

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 in any appeal ... disputed that the value adopted by the stamp duty authority exceeds the value of the residential flats purchased by the assessee on the date of transfer, and the value so adopted is also not in dispute in any appeal, revision or reference before any Authority, Court or High Court. Thus

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6580/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Officer then examined the written down values of the same assets in the books of M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. as on the date of transfer, which were as under: Particulars WDV as on Additions Disposals WDV as on 01.04.2011 till date of till date of 01.09.2011 sale transfer Building ... time. In the present case, the written down value of the building in the books of M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. on the date of transfer was Rs. 31.25 crores, whereas the assessee had adopted values of Rs. 217.95 crores and Rs. 159.72 crores based on valuation reports. The Assessing

Kovalam Resort Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6579/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6578/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Officer then examined the written down values of the same assets in the books of M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. as on the date of transfer, which were as under: Particulars WDV as on Additions Disposals WDV as on 01.04.2011 till date of | till date of 01.09.2011 sale transfer Building ... time. In the present case, the written down value of the building in the books of M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. on the date of transfer was Rs. 31.25 crores, whereas the assessee had adopted values of Rs. 217.95 crores and Rs. 159.72 crores based on valuation reports. The Assessing

Amarjit Singh Marwaha, Shimla vs. ITO, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1379/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1379/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amarjit Singh Marwaha, The Ito, Cottage No.1, Sadhora, Vs Ward-1, Mashobra, Baldeyan, Shimla. Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepm0161N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, With Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, with Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 45Section 54Section 54F

will be charged to tax u/s 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of the original asset expires. Meaning thereby, three years from assessment year 2013-14, it has to be taxed but, it is not sustainable

Nayana Jayesh Patel, Indore vs. Assessing Officer, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 250Section 50c

This approach is consistent with the provisions of Section 50C, which states that the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority on the date of transfer shall be deemed as the full value of consideration. The A.O.'s application of Section 50C is in line with the statutory provisions

Babulal Mulchand Varma, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3150/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh &

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

relevant date commences from the commences. Whether the relevant date commences from the date of search (i.e. 18th October 2019), or the date of transfer date of search (i.e. 18th October 2019), or the date of transfer date of search (i.e. 18th October 2019), or the date of transfer

Babulal Mulchand Varma, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3148/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh &

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69