“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

Subhash Maruti Ghorpade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1167/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Shri Shankar Rama Ghorpade Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Shiv Parvati Bangalow Katrap Gaon, Kulgaon, Badlapur Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (East)-421 503 (W), 421 301 Pan : Aehpg5210M Appellant Respondent Dnyaneshwar Shankar Ghorpade Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, (L/H Of Late Shankar Rama Ghorpade), Shiv Parvati Bangalow Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Katrap Gaon, Kulgaon, Badlapur (W), 421 301 (East)-421 503 Pan : Aehpg5210M Appellant Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

ingredients of the provision manifest that the land which is transferred should have been used for agricultural purpose two years immediately preceding the date of transfer and that the acquisition by the government bodies should have been compulsory acquisition. In the present case in hand, the assessee has failed

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

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

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

Shri. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

development expenses, he sustained the addition. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 6. With regard to treating the date of transfer of the immovable property as on the date of entering into the JDA on 7.5.2009, and treating it as a transfer and thereafter concluding the arising ... agreement, in the garb of agreement of sale, it is the date of this development agreement which is material date to decide the date of transfer. However, by no stretch of logic, this legal precedent can support the proposition that all development agreements, in all situations, satisfy the conditions

Rajesh R. Sawlani, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1498/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

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 ... transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer and, the value so adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority had neither been disputed by the assessee in any appeal or revision nor any reference

DCIT vs. M/S Fiza Developers & Intertrade Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed statistical purposes

ITA 1026/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Dilip for K.V. Arivind, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R

Section 131Section 153ASection 68Section 80Section 80I

quite different. The assessee has mentioned that the amount has been transferred to Fiza Infructure account but he has not produced the actual date of transfer and evidence in this regard. The assessee has produced the ledger account of Poorva Power Genco which is placed at page No.177

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 383/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravi shankar

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

case, it is apparent that the date of the sanctioned plan has been taken both by the AO and the appellant as the date of transfer of the capital asset. However, it is also pertinent to ascertain whether construction commenced immediately after the Page 7 of 23 sanctioned plan

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Transport and Travels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar

Section 143(3)

asset means 16 Reliance Transport & Travels Pvt. Ltd. capital asset held by the assessee for not more than 36 months immediately preceding the date of transfer. Section 50 is a special provision for computing the capital gains in case of a depreciable asset and is not only restricted to provisions

Leila Advani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MishraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

possession was handed over. In Rita Mechanical Works v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman (AT) 92 (Chd.), the question was as to the date of transfer. The firm revalued the assets on March 31, 1995 and the partners’ accounts were credited with the difference in book value and the value ... revaluation. The firm was converted into a joint-stock company which was registered on April 3, 1995. It was held that the date of transfer was the date when the company was registered and not the date of revaluation relevant for the assessment year 1995-96. The capital gain could

Mr.Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R

Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

father (died on 13.7.2015) had given the possession of the said property for development on 16.6.2014, the Appellant and his father reckoned the date of transfer as 16.6.2014 and offered and declared the Long-Term Capital arising out of the JDA for the A.Y.2015-16. 10.5 Disregarding all the aforesaid facts ... explanations offered by the Appellant the AO held that the date of transfer of old asset under the JDA is the date of JDA and assessed the Long- Term Capital Gains arising from the JDA for the A.Y.2014-15 disregarding the law related and the decisions of the Jurisdictional

Manoj Tekriwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT

Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

shall not apply where (a) the assessee (1) 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 of transfer ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Bollineni Guruppa Naidu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2812/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Bollinni The Deputy Gurappa Naidu, Commissioner Of No. 42, 3Rd Block, Income Tax, 6Th Cross, Circle 3(1)(1), Thyagraj Nagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 028. Pan: Ahkpb8977G Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 20/07/2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,20,040/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & The Statutory

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma

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

therefore the finding of the Assessing Officer that the appellant had more than one residential property other than new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset is not justified. The conditions to be fullfilled to claim exemption U/s.54 of the Act are that the tax payer should ... purchase another house within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer of old house or should construct another house whithin a period of three years from the date of transfer and in case till the date of filing the return of income

Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 281/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

himself as the owner of the property as on 1.4.2010 itself. Therefore, date of acquisition of the property is treated as 23.12.2013 and date of transfer of property is 14.10.2016. This implies that assessee held the property for a period of less than 36 months which makes it a short

Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd. (Asol) As A Successor to Accenture Serivces Pvt Ltd (Aspl), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8008/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

expires i.e. 31.10.2018. 15. Now the question arises as to how the period of 60 days prior to the date of transfer pricing order i.e. 01.11.2019 is to be computed. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while dealing with the issue

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

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; Unreserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than those

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha

Section 54F

Thus, the difference between the sale consideration and true value of shares was chargeable as capital gains. Since, 1n the instant case, the date of transfer of shares was 1/15-4-2005 and the investment in the specified securities had, accordingly, been made within the specified penod in any view

Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 633/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54F

gain on account of JDA for Assessment Year 2015-16 as follows: Schedule 1 Long term capital gain Immovable property other than residential Date of transfer 17-Oct-14 Sale consideration 1,92,85,000 Acquisition details Financial Year Cost Indexed Cost Cost of Land-1862*1024/161 ... head "Income from house property", other than the new asset." In the present scenario the assessee has within period of 3 years from date of transfer of original asset is constructing other two residential houses (as a result of joint Development agreement) with income chargeable under the head "Income from

Nagaraj Desirazu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 449/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54F

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

land sold by assessee is non-agricultural land. Further, it was submitted that, land has been used by the assessee till the date of transfer as agricultural land and also assessee declared income from agriculture in its return of income which was not accepted by the department. Further, the Ld.AR ... existing in the subject property even on the date of sale. This clearly attributes the assessee's assertion that even on the date of transfer, the subject Page 27 of 66 land was held to be agriculture. In this regard, we would like to refer to the Certificate of Senior