“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

Mohan Lal Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 746/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 54

income arising from sale of property situated at Flat No.2001, 10 Floor, Nishant Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Plot No.5, Sector- 198, Dwarka. The date of transfer is is 28 February 2017. The said property was transferred for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,38,00,000/- and the Long- Term ... appellant has purchased a bare shell flat on 13th august 2016 i.e within the same financial year (i.e. within one year before date of transfer of old asset). For a property which he claims that endorsement of sale took place on 18-2-2014, the claim of the appellant

Narendra Mahendra Kothari, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1006/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Shri Narendra Mahendra- The Income Tax Officer, Kothari, Non-Corporate Ward-5(2), No.76, Osian Heights, Chennai. Basin Bridge Road, Mint, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Amopk 2535 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 54Section 68Section 80C

assessee has computed ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ from transfer of property by way of Release Deed dated 07.08.2013 by taking into account the date of transfer of property as 06.03.2014 with reference to Deed of Declaration executed by three persons and claimed that property was held for more than ... head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’. The AO assessed gain derived from transfer of land by way of Release Deed by taking into account date of transfer as per Release Deed dated 07.08.2013. According to the AO, the assessee has released rights in the property and received full consideration and handed

Shri Krishnaraj Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 50

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR श्री संदीDeep गोसाई, न्यायिक

Citi Corp International Finance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2)

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2732/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: 17.11.2023

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

without considering the fact that the said shares were held by the assessee for more than 12 months preceding the date of transfer. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee company incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, USA is a tax resident of the Unites States ... that the assessee had entered into an agreement for sale of shares with Infosys Technology Ltd. on 20.04.2006 but the date of transfer of shares was only on 30.06.2006. The ld. AR further stated that the lower authorities have relied on the CBDT Circular No. 704 dated 28.04.1995 for determining

Citicorp International Finance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Addl.D.I.T. (It) RG.-1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2545/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: 17.11.2023

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Continental Corrugators Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1538/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 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

Mira Mahal Premises Management Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)- 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 7158/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Gala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

amount set apart for payment of dividends of 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; M/s Mira Mahal Premises Management Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even

Bhogilal Bahilalbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT -1, Vadoadar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 231/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 475/2 Sagar Faliya Vadodara. At & Post Bhayali Vadodara 391 410. Pan : Bkkpp 3136 R

For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 54B

capital gain ought to be earned on transfer of land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer ,was being used by the assessee for agriculture purpose, and • the capital gain earned on transfer of such land is invested in other land to be used for agriculture ... inquiry had been made by the AO regarding the user of the land for agriculture purpose for two years prior to the date of transfer. The relevant part being para-4.5 is reproduced as under: “4.5 On examination of case records, it is seen that in the instant case

Prathamesh Vivek Khot, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 41 2 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 2602/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Prathamesh Vivek Khot 1502-1503 Dreams 1-A Wing, National E-Assessment Lbs Marg Bhandup (W), Centre, Delhi Vs. Mumbai-400 078 Maharashtra-400 078 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bsbpk6695K Assessee By : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR

Section 142Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 54FSection 9

available. The AO denied the exemption holding that assessee owns more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset and therefore is not entitled to deduction/exemption under section 54F of the act. Thus, the addition

Siel Ltd vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2659/DEL/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 115J

valuation report, the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was 79.05 lakhs and cost of improvement from 01.04.1981 till the date of transfer i.e. 31.03.1996 was valued at Rs. 903.51 lakhs. Compressor business was transferred to subsidiary at book value of Rs. 3266.57 lakhs on indexation of cost of acquisition

Tarun Kumar Ratan Singh Rathi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 2695/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

section 54 was disallowed by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that date of agreement to sell cannot be treated as date of transfer of immovable property. Even in terms of section 54 of the Transfer Of Property Act, 1882, an agreement to sell does not create ... observed in para 11.5 as under: "11.5 Even otherwise we find that section 54 gives a window period of three years, from the date of transfer of original asset, for the construction of a new house and two years for purchasing a new house. Further as per the section

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Vibgyor Net Connections, Karnataka

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.631/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Cross-Objection No.29/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132Section 69A

M/s.Polisetty Somasundaram without appreciating the fact that there is a close proximity between date of sale of property by the assessee and date of transfer of cash to Bangalore. The Ld.DR further submitted that although, Shri Yeluri Chandrasekhar Rao admitted to have paid on-money in respect of certain property ... case of the assessee nor in the case of search of M/s.Polisetty Somasundaram with regard to alleged payment of on-money. Moreover, the date of transfer of property was on 23.12.2015, whereas the alleged cash payment was purportedly made on 31.12.2015, which is one week & CO No.29/Chny/2023 :: 14 :: later than

Indira Giri, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Deparment Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

Assessing Officer denied exemption on ground that assessee could neither prove possession of residential flat within a period of two years from date of transfer of old flat nor had deposited unutilized capital gain in capital gain account scheme before due date of filing of return under section

Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 41(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3177/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

For Appellant: Mr. S.M. MakhijaFor Respondent: Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. DR

Section 54ESection 54F

than one residential house, other than the new asset, on ) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within ... than the new asset, within a ) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or period of one year after

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir., 2, Surat vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

ITA 121/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Surat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir., -1(2), Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

ITA 118/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

Nilanjan Chaudhari, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Circle- 3, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2746/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

consideration/Long Term Capital Gain in “Capital Gains Accounts Scheme” but had duly reinvested in the new house property within two years from the date of transfer of the old property to the tune of Rs.63,75,939/- which is much more than the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.60

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. S D Material Handlers Private Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

restriction on transfer of such ownership. It simply obligates the transferor and the transferee to report within the specified time from the date of transfer the fact of transfer to the registering authority. This section, in fact, presupposes transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. It is only after

Shri Leelahar Palasiyawala, Indore vs. The ITO 4(4), Indore

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 346/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

these dates were beyond the prescribed period of 2 years from the date of transfer (24.11.2014). The AO did not examine this aspect. 6. Finally, Ld. PCIT set aside assessment-order with a direction to AO to re-frame assessment after examining the issues noted by him. Aggrieved by such ... therefore the investment is made in prescribed period. Ld. AR submitted that the AO has, after due consideration, accepted that the ‘date of transfer’ should be taken on last receipt of sale-consideration (05.02.2015) and not on execution of sale-deed (24.11.2014) and rightly allowed exemption to assessee. 10. With

Nelco Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3825/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 15(2)(1) Nelco Limited Room No.357, 2Nd Floor, El-6, Electronic Zone, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1983C

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50B

liability is still outstanding in the books of the assessee. Thus, the liability is recorded in the books of accounts, as on the date of transfer of undertaking and according to the explanation 1 it is required to be reduced from the total value of assets to determine