“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

Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhsmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Ito Ward 42 (1)(1) Room No. 103, Sacovar Apt., Sagar Complex, 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (W), Bkc, Mumbai -400051 Mumbai Pan – Agnpk6023E

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Bank of Commerce dated 01.08.2013 for Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- against the purchase consideration, copy of share certificates bearing the date of transfer. First, we are considering the primary submission of Ld. AR of the assessee about validity of assessment order. We find that case of assessee ... name of Conquer Barter Pvt. Ltd. which bears the date of issuance as 10.09.2013. The shares were transferred to assessee on 22.11.2013. Such date of transfer is clearly discernible on back side of share certificates, copy of which is filed at page No. 77 of the Paper Book. We find

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Thomson Reuters India Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue in IT(TP)

ITA 843/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)

234/Bang/2015 I.T.A. No. 843/Bang/2015 I.T.A. No. 542/Bang/2015 onwards and the said deduction was claimed by Thomson Business Information (India) Ltd. till the date of transfer of the said unit to the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that, the said transfer of UB Plaza Unit was by way of slump sale

Prem Sagar Chopra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 4538/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Prem Sagar Chopra (Since Ito - 16(1)(3) Mumbai, Deceased) Through Neelam Prem Vs Room No. 438, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sagar Chopra (Wife), Road, Churchgate, Sagar Villa Road No. 12A, Jvpd Mumbai – 400020. Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400049. [Pan No. Aapps2469E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

family settlement was executed on 02.03.2011 which pertains to F.Y. 2010-11. The assessee failed to establish the actual date of transfer and valuation thereof. No evidence of capital infusion in current financial year is furnished. Further, profit of LLP does not with the assessee’s capital account. Thus

Gaddam Mohan Reddy, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nizamabad

ITA 1685/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

erroneous, as the period of holding of 517.87 sq yds of land was only 9 months (less than 36 months) as on the date of transfer, i.e., vide document, dated 16/07/2012 entered into between the assessee and the developer, viz., M/s. Venki Infra & Developers, Nizamabad. Thus, the PCIT observed that ... assessee during the subject year was held only for a period of 9 months (less than 36 months) as on the date of transfer, i.e., vide document, dated 16/07/2012, between the assessee and the developer, viz., M/s. Venki Infra & Developers, Nizamabad, therefore, the STCG arising on the transfer

Nitin Bhatia, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1472/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: CA Y.V Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR

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

loan and own funds. The registered sale deed of the new residential house was executed on 24.10.2019, i.e., within two years from the date of transfer of the original residential house. The Ld. AO allowed the deduction under section 54 of the Act for the amount which was actually paid ... subsequently paid through housing loan and own funds. The registered sale deed was executed on 24.10.2019, i.e., well within two years from the date of transfer of the original residential house. The Ld. AR vehemently contended that as the assessee invested more than the amount of capital gain in purchase

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate vs. Royal Developers, Nr. Ip Mission School, Muglisa

ITA 860/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh K KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “DB” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Pravinsinh Bhawansinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 829/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54FSection 68

land sold by the assessee was agricultural in nature and whether it was used for agricultural purposes during the two years preceding the date of transfer. After considering Form No. 12, 7/12 extracts, agricultural income declared by the assessee, and other documentary evidence, the CIT(Appeals) held that the land

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Bir Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3969/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)

clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding ii. the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu undivided family or individual or a parent of his; such transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition under

Brawny Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 571/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 3Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

further requested to file the valuation of shares with respect to all investments made during the year as on the date of transfer otherwise the undersigned will be constrained to take the valuation of shares based on last audited balance sheet.” 15.2 In reply, the assessee submitted that the provision

Jaya Haresh Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Kalyan

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

ITA 4899/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Patwardhan

Section 69A

narration of the credit and debit entry into bank account is bank account is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: Date Amount Remarks Date of Transfer Amount Remarks Remarks Received Transfer 23/05/2016 400000 24/05/2016 399000 Tr. to Wadhwa Builcon LLp Received from Wadhwa Received from Wadhwa Buildcon LLp( Rec.WBLLP) Buildcon

Rahul Nath, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7409/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Shri Saksham Garg and Ms. Ragini Handa, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) 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 ... original asset; or (iii) 29 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

ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Rahul Nath, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7008/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) 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 ... 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

ITO (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad vs. Kesava Kumar Kunapureddy, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 937/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 54ESection 54F

fact that, the assessee has failed to prove purchase of new residential house property/construction of house property within three years from the date of transfer of original asset. The learned Sr.A.R. further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that, the TDS is an appropriation ... Capital Gain Deposit Account Scheme and further the construction of new residential house property was not completed within 3 years from the date of transfer of the original asset. However, the fact remains that the assessee has invested an amount of Rs. 7,33,96,000/- towards reinvestment of sale

Padmini Solanki, DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur, Gujarat vs. Aditya Harshvadan Mangaldas, Tatva Gardan, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 54F

more than one residential house, other than the new Padmini Solanki, DCIT vs. Aditya Harshvadan Mangaldas Page 3 of 7 asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset. He submitted that the clause that the assessee should own only one residential house was not satisfied in this case

Ramsinhji Meraji Vanzara, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1449/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Jagrat Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uady Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 250Section 270Section 54BSection 54B(1)

deduction of Rs.30,48,569/- u/s 54B on the ground that new agricultural land was purchased on 14.08.2019, within two years from the date of transfer. 3.1 During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that as on the date of filing the return, the assessee had utilized only Rs.1.53 lakh

Raghvendra Singh, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Bamboo Villa, Calcutta

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

ITA 1763/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1763/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raghvendra Singh,……………….………...……Appellant 13, Burnt Salt Gola Lane, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Bjhps6740J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-62(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Vidyut Sethi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

agree with the value adopted by the stamp duty authority as it exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer as the said value is totally unfair and inconsistent with the value prevailing in the concerned locality. Assessee has requested for the valuation

Kannaki, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1972/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1972 & 1970/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 54E

claim of exemption u/s.54EC of the Act ITA Nos.1970 & 1972/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: since the investments were not made within six months from the date of transfer. 6. Aggrieved by the assessments completed by disallowing the claim of exemption u/s.54EC of the Act for the assessment years ... assessee wrote a letter to the Union Bank of India as early as on 24.03.2016 i.e., within 43 days from the date of transfer requesting to allot 54EC bonds for assessee and the other co-owner. When bonds were available money was transferred from the assessee’s account

Kannaki, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1970/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1972 & 1970/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 54E

Ram Kishore Seth, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1154/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmalate Shri Ram Kishore Seth, Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir, Smt. Rama Seth), New Delhi. Nd-63, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Ejips0799P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Order : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 16.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 24Section 54Section 54FSection 68

dated 05.02.2024. 6 Further, the Ld. AO contended that appellant owned more than one house property, apart from the new asset on the date of transfer of original asset, based on assumption that the assessee earns income from multiple house properties. This is recorded in para 4.2 at page ... separate residential property. It is clarified that assessee did not own more than one residential property other than the new asset on the date of transfer. The Ld. AO's contention-s-that each floor constitutes a distinct residential house-is not correct. PB 30-40 (35) is the copy