← 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

Smt. Aarti Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5313/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon division dated 29/03/2010, 23/0412010 relied upon (while dismissing the appeal) has been passed by the revenue authority after the date of transfer of land by the assessee. 1.10 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has also erred in justifying the action of the assessing officer regarding ... Gurgaon ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others division dated 29/03/2010, 23/04/2010 relied upon ( while dismissing the appeal) has been passed by the revenue authority after the date of transfer of land by the assessee. 1.10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has also erred in justifying the action of the Assessing Officer

Smt. Aarti Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5312/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon division dated 29/03/2010, 23/0412010 relied upon (while dismissing the appeal) has been passed by the revenue authority after the date of transfer of land by the assessee. 1.10 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has also erred in justifying the action of the assessing officer regarding ... Gurgaon ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others division dated 29/03/2010, 23/04/2010 relied upon ( while dismissing the appeal) has been passed by the revenue authority after the date of transfer of land by the assessee. 1.10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has also erred in justifying the action of the Assessing Officer

ACIT, Circle- 31(1), New Delhi vs. Rajat Bhandari, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the LD AO is dismissed

ITA 4840/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Bansal, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145Section 54F

that it is not possible to collect the direct evidence to prove that the assessee owned more than one residential house, on the date of transfer of original asset. He further noted that after taking consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case one could draw

Brash Steels Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 6181/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Brash Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Near Ward-1(2), Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121002 Pan-Aafcb0204R

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 11USection 133(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

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 14 negative, other

ACIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi vs. Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we dismiss this appeal by the Revenue

ITA 5960/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy[A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat B. Garg, Sr. DR
Section 132(6)Section 133(6)Section 80I

case. But as earlier pointed out, what is required to be found out is whether “the market value of transferred goods on the date of transfer” in the Indian market. This has not been done either at the stage by the Ld. Counsel, this matter is restored to the file

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

crore u/s 54EC of the income tax act, 1961, when the assessee has purchased both the capital gain bonds prior to the date of transfer of capital asset. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in allowing claim of Rs 1 crore ... Delhi. He also noted that the property at Mumbai was purchased on 6/9/2007, prior to the period of one year from the date of transfer of capital asset on 25th of March 2010, and further the assessee was also asked to justify the deduction of ₹ 1,70,00,000/- claimed

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

crore u/s 54EC of the income tax act, 1961, when the assessee has purchased both the capital gain bonds prior to the date of transfer of capital asset. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in allowing claim of Rs 1 crore ... Delhi. He also noted that the property at Mumbai was purchased on 6/9/2007, prior to the period of one year from the date of transfer of capital asset on 25th of March 2010, and further the assessee was also asked to justify the deduction of ₹ 1,70,00,000/- claimed

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

crore u/s 54EC of the income tax act, 1961, when the assessee has purchased both the capital gain bonds prior to the date of transfer of capital asset. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in allowing claim of Rs 1 crore ... Delhi. He also noted that the property at Mumbai was purchased on 6/9/2007, prior to the period of one year from the date of transfer of capital asset on 25th of March 2010, and further the assessee was also asked to justify the deduction of ₹ 1,70,00,000/- claimed

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1881/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5

agreed conversion rate in Yen and as such, for the purpose of computation of capital gain, exchange rate prevailing on the date of transfer need not to be adopted since consideration was already agreed in Yen payable by one non- resident to another non-resident in Japan and no remittance ... capital gain, it was merely commented by him that as the shares were also traded in the National Stock Exchange on the date of transfer, the negotiated prices cannot be considered. He however did not adversely comment in respect of the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) entered between two non-residents

Rita Chandiok, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3270/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Rita Chandiok, Acit, L-41, Connaught Circus, Vs Circle-52(1), New Delhi-110001. New Delhi. Pan-Aaapc2224L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rita Chandiok, Acit, C/O-Mr.Vinod Chandiok, Vs Circle-31(1), M/S. Walkar Chandiok & Co., New Delhi. L-41, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapc2224L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Vinod Bindal, Ca & Ms. Sweety Kothari, Adv. Respondent By Sh.Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2021

Section 143(3)Section 54

para 9: For the purpose of exemption under section 54F, the assessees must construct residential houses within three years from the date of transfer. The question here is whether the assessee constructs a residential house or not. In this case, there is no proof for the construction of the same

Ita Chandiok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, 31(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5559/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Rita Chandiok, Acit, L-41, Connaught Circus, Vs Circle-52(1), New Delhi-110001. New Delhi. Pan-Aaapc2224L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rita Chandiok, Acit, C/O-Mr.Vinod Chandiok, Vs Circle-31(1), M/S. Walkar Chandiok & Co., New Delhi. L-41, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapc2224L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Vinod Bindal, Ca & Ms. Sweety Kothari, Adv. Respondent By Sh.Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2021

Section 143(3)Section 54

para 9: For the purpose of exemption under section 54F, the assessees must construct residential houses within three years from the date of transfer. The question here is whether the assessee constructs a residential house or not. In this case, there is no proof for the construction of the same

Shiv Kumar Jatia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7256/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 2(24)Section 71Section 74

long term capital asset, the asset has to be “held” by the assessee for more than 36 months immediately preceding the date of transfer. It was also held the agreement between the assessee and the builder 13. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available

Shiv Kumar Jatia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 2(24)Section 71Section 74

long term capital asset, the asset has to be “held” by the assessee for more than 36 months immediately preceding the date of transfer. It was also held the agreement between the assessee and the builder 13. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3259/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4986/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Interarch Building Products (P) Circle-11(1), Ltd., Farm No. 8, Khasra No. 56/2, New Delhi Dera Mandi Road, Mandi Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110047 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci0106J Assessee By : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Interarch Building Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3259/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3259/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4986/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Interarch Building Products (P) Circle-11(1), Ltd., Farm No. 8, Khasra No. 56/2, New Delhi Dera Mandi Road, Mandi Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110047 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci0106J Assessee By : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR

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

Govind Singh Grewal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3232/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Govind Singh Grewal, Vs Ito, 8-A, Panchsheel Marg, Ward-61(1), Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aghpg7795D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 54

held that since the property was held by the assessee for a period of 16 months from the date of registration till the date of transfer, therefore, the property in question is short-term capital asset and profit on such transfer is short-term capital gain and the assessee

Manish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Late Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Section 160Section 160(1)(i)Section 161(1)Section 163Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54F

Taxmann.com 11 (Mum). In the present case also, assessee was offered possession of house on 28.01.2011 i.e. within 03 years from the date of transfer but he could not take possession as infrastructure was not complete at that time. Later, the assessee could not take possession

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 483/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

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

book value of the net tangible assets (assets minus liabilities) acquired was recorded in the balance sheet of the transferor as on the date of transfer as Rs.28.11 Crores. The said assets and liabilities were recorded in the books of transferee at the same value as appeared in the books ... book value of the net tangible assets (assets minus liabilities) acquired was recorded in the balance sheet of the transferor as on the date of transfer as Rs.28.11 Crores. The said assets and liabilities were recorded in the books of transferee at the same value as appeared in the books

Ashok Kumar Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-39(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 114/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

provides that, if new house is purchased within a period of 1 year prior or within 2 years after the date of transfer of the property, the assessee will be entitled for exemption u/s. 54F. The sale of Plot took place on 15.04.2015 hence the investment in new house ... supra) has held that where the, assessee has invested entire sale consideration in construction of a residential house within 03 years from the date of transfer, he could not be denied exemption u/s. 54F on ground that he did not deposit said amount in Capital Gain Account Scheme before

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

mentioned here that the ascertainment of quantum of refundable option money depends upon the market value of the shares on the date of transfer of shares in terms of the formula given in Schedule 3 of the joint venture agreement. More the market value of shares more is the amount ... performance of the investee company during the holding period, or the intrinsic or the market value of its shares as on the date of transfer, the assessee is to, on the exercise of the option, or alternatively by AT&T, entitled to a (contractually agreed) price calculated to give