← 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

Thanwardas Lalchand Motwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3975/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashish A ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 54

Enterprises on 24.04.2012 and the physical possession of the property was also transferred by the assessee to M/s. Arihant Enterprises on the same date, therefore, “transfer” as contemplated u/s 2(47) of the Act was completed Thanwardas Lalchand Motwani. in the financial year relevant to the assessment year ... assessee is required to purchase the new residential house property within a period of two years from the date of transfer of the original property. However, in the present case, even though the assessee deposited the entire sale consideration of Rs.7.20 cr in the Capital Gains Scheme Account

M/S Goyal Developrs, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

ITA 210/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Goyal Developers, The Acit, 1, Business Embassy, V Circle-2, Pune. 1205/3/3, J.M.Road, S Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005. Pan: Aajfg5666P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 08.12.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That There Was Marginal Difference Between The Sales Consideration Shown By The Appellant & The Value Adopted For Payment Of Stamp Duty & M/S.Goyal Developers [A]

Section 1Section 16ASection 2Section 23ASection 24Section 250Section 34ASection 35Section 37Section 43

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

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

computed as if the transfer of goods or services were made at the market value of goods or services on the date of transfer. As a corollary, what is required to be ascertained is whether the transfer of goods and services between eligible unit and the non eligible unit inter ... 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. 28. The ld. counsel contends that it is judicially settled that the presence of comparably higher profit yield attributable

Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Abdul Kabeer, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

Whether the land sold by the assessee was used for agriculture for 2 years immediately preceding the date of transfer; (b) Whether the properties purchased by the assessee for availing exemption u/s. 54B are agricultural and used exclusively for agriculture. The genuineness of the transaction was also enquired into

DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 5670/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshasstt. Yr: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 54

transfer, was a residential property which was sold on 25.09.2014 in favour of Shri Kore for Rs. 6,88,00,000/-. The date of transfer being 25.09.2014, as per the provisions of Section 54 of the Act, the assessee in order to claim deduction u/s 54 of the Act, should ... that such residential house, having the basic amenities was not constructed by the assessee on or before 25.09.2017 (i.e. three years from the date of transfer i.e. 25.09.2014). Even as late as on 7.12.2017, the Inspector of Income-tax along with Office 10 Superintendent attached to the office

Kulwant Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohali

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

ITA 395/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)Section 54B

said report does not certify that the land in question was being used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, which is a prerequisite condition for claiming deduction u/s 54B of the Act. In any case this aspect ought to have been examined

DCIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi vs. Ritisha Oils P.Ltd, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4169/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

negative. 4. With regard to genuineness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer observed that large number of cash deposits were made before the date of transfer of money to the assessee company for share capital/premium. Further, he observed that M/s Jain & Co. is a related party of M/s Ritisha Oils

Penupetruni Chinna Rao, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 401/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C(1)Section 54Section 54B

agreement of sale which took place in the previous year relevant to the AY 2013-14, only should have been considered as the date of transfer. H. The learned CIT(A) erred in endorsing the view of the AO that build, constructed was to the tune of 18593 sq.ft

Pushpanjali Medi India (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 859/KOL/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "याियक सद"य) Ita Nos.858 & 859/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Pushpanjali Medi India Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ltd. 2(1), Kolkata. 5Th Floor, Gandhi House, Vs. 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. (Pan: Aafcp0049J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 232Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL

M/S. Pushpanjali Medi India Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-2(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 858/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "याियक सद"य) Ita Nos.858 & 859/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Pushpanjali Medi India Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ltd. 2(1), Kolkata. 5Th Floor, Gandhi House, Vs. 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. (Pan: Aafcp0049J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 232Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL

Pingash Marketing Private Limited, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 99/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity 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

Gopesh Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 98/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity 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

Vidhi Cinemas Pvt.Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 88/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity 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

Zhilmil Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 87/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity 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

Shanta Blankets Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 84/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity 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

Chandravadan Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 674/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandravadan Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Sb Tower, 3Rd Floor Vs Kolkata 37, Shakespeare Sarani Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabdh5812Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 09/05/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 30/12/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed By Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Inspite Of Being Aware That Chandravadan Desai Huf Had Been Partitioned & Had Ceased To Exist Upon Its Partition On The 26Th Day Of March 2014 & The Impugned Penalty Order Passed By The Ao In The Name Of Chandravadan Desai Huf, A Non-Existent Person Was Invalid & Therefore The Order Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

transfer of equity shares to the member and for arriving at the said long term capital loss, market price as on the date of transfer of such equity shares has been taken as the basis. The ld. Assessing Officer further noticed that even though the transfer of the equity shares

Pranav Bhawnath Jha, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3464/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpranav Bhawnath Jha Vs. Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1) A-1103, Lokhandwala Air India Building, Residency, L Papan Marg Mumbai Maharashtra – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abupj5391G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Digesh RambhiaFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 54

because he has not purchased a residential house within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer of the long term capital asset. Accordingly, the assessing officer denied the exemption u/s 54 of the Act amounting to Rs.53,49,175/-. 3. The assessee filed ... flat at Elegant Tower which was under construction and the payment to the builder was made to the builder much earlier to the date of transfer of old flat. We have also considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. J.R. Subramanya

Khushaal C. Thackersey, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3679/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 54ESection 54F

other than a residential house, if the assessee has purchased within two years and constructed within 3 years a residential house, from the date of transfer of the capital asset. He noticed that the NCDs were redeemed by the assessee in October, 2009 and the agreement for purchase of flat

Raoul S. Thackersey, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3678/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 54ESection 54F

other than a residential house, if the assessee has purchased within two years and constructed within 3 years a residential house, from the date of transfer of the capital asset. He noticed that the NCDs were redeemed by the assessee in October, 2009 and the agreement for purchase of flat

Vaishali Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 380/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

properly allowed, and apart from new residential property acquired by the assessee whether the assessee owns more than one residential property on the date of transfer of original asset i.e. 05.01.2015, and also whether other conditions as specified in section 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961 are satisfied. In view ... further note that the AO has not also conducted inquiries whether the assessee owns more than one residential house property as on date of transfer of the property. 8.1 From the above facts, we note that the enquiries to this extent discussed above have not been done