“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

Anant R Gawande, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give consequential relief

ITA 5453/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 54Section 54F

more residential house other than the new asset on 04/05/2013 and that this transaction is within a period of one year after the date of transfer of original asset. Accordingly, applying proviso (a)(ii) to section 54F assessee was asked as to why his claim under section 54F should ... claim of the assessee was India bulls property was purchased in FY 2009-10 was accepted, it would mean that as on the date of transfer of original asset, the assessee had the following two residential houses: 1. Pune Kohinoor flat which was sold on 07/08/2012 2. India bulls property

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range- 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Abhishek Millennium Contracts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

ITA 5568/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 28

category (c) is concerned, the same would fall for consideration to see if it is capital receipt chargeable to tax as on the date of transfer because after 1-4-2003 such consideration even if regarded as capital receipt would be chargeable to tax u/s.28

M/S Mitchell Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1718/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54E

benefit of section 54EC was denied to the Appellant since the requirement of making investment within a period of six months from the date of transfer of asset was not satisfied. 5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of Assessing Officer ... Thus, we find merit in the contention of the Appellant that date of registered Cancellation Deed (i.e. 11.09.2012) should be taken as the date of transfer of capital asset. In order to claim benefit of Section 54EC, investment must be made within six month from the transfer of the capital

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

ITA 933/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: ShriDhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 144Section 153Section 92C

section 153 of the Act expires. 14. 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

Ashwin K. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2060/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(3)Section 50C

Being aggrieved, Appellant carried this issue in appeal before CIT(A) and made following submission before CIT(A). The Appellant contended that the date of transfer of the property should be taken as October/November, 2013 when the possession of the property was transferred after receiving the entire sale consideration ... Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, the Appellant contended that even if the date of execution of sale agreement is taken as the date of transfer of the Office Premises, the correct stamp duty valuation rate should have been adopted. The Office Premises was located at Plot No.C-28, G Block

Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Bangalore vs. Smt. Y Manjula Reddy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1780/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 54F

considered to have ITA Nos.1755 & 1780/Bang/2013 Smt. Y. Manjula Reddy, Bangalore Page 5 of 11 purchased new house within one year before the date of transfer. 3. The assessee has got more than one residential house at the time of sale of the land as given below:- a) Property

Y. Manjula Reddy vs. ITO

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1755/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 54F

Shri Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54B

application of 10(37) of the Act is that the land should have been used for agricultural purposes 2 years immediately preceding the date of transfer. The assessee was unable to substantiate the use of the land for agricultural purpose that was compulsorily acquired and, in the circumstances

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

years, the lands restored to their original character of ‘agricultural land’. f. Agricultural activities were carried on by the Appellant till the date of transfer; g. No real income arose to the Appellant since the entire arrangement with VBEHCS has been cancelled vide Arbitration order dated 25.04.2013. What is sold ... Appellant submits that although the lands were converted, agricultural activities were carried on by the Appellant till the date of transfer. The same can be evidenced from the RTC Copies provided by the competent authorities. ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 23 of 78 18. Without prejudice, for the agricultural land

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

Shri. Uday Rajaram Lad, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-20 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6735/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bleshri Uday Rajaram Lad V. Acit – Circle – 20(3) 5Th Floor, Rajaram Estate Room No. 614 Dadasaheb Phalke Road Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400014 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aabpl7095H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tikekar Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TikekarFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 45Section 54

denied on the ground that the date of the purchase agreement is beyond the period of 1 year prior to the date of transfer. 2.0 Legal submission: 2.1 Relevant portion of section 54 of the Act is produced as under: 54. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where ... period prescribed u/s.54F of the I.T. Act and further, majority of payments were paid by the assessee before one year from the date of transfer of the property i.e. before 12.04.2006. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee. When matter travelled before the Hon’ble Tribunal

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Lld, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2076/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

depreciation claimed by the Assessee was according to the valuation of the assets in the books of the firm as on the date of transfer of the assets and liabilities to the Assessee. Since building was revalued in the books of the firm to an extent of Rs 1.2 crores

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2075/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2074/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Although the lands were converted, agricultural activities were carried on by the Appellant till the date of transfer. The same can be evidenced from the RTC Copies provided by the competent authorities filed on record. 15. Without prejudice, the ld. AR submitted that ... 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 land was held to be agriculture. In this regard, we would like to refer to the Certificate of Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Rani Jagdish Sahdevan, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 162/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT–DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

utilized for the purpose of purchase of new residential house within a period of either one year before or two years after the date of transfer of earlier asset or the same has been utilized for construction of residential house within a period of three years from the date ... respect of amount of Rs.24,25,000 utilized for the purpose of purchase of new asset beyond the period of two years from date of transfer of original asset. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any merit even in the alternative claim made by the assessee

Smt. S.M.Shoba, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA

Section 54F

year before or two year after the date on which transfer took place or, has within a period of three years after the date of transfer constructed a residential house. The revenue contends that as the assessee acquired the property with respect to which the deduction under section ... income of the previous year, if the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer of that residential house purchased another residential house in India or has within a period of three years after the date of transfer constructed a residential