← 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

Hemant Naresh Agarwal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. 4, Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69

addition in the case of the firm as it is undisputed facts that the fair market value of the 12 flats as on date of transfer to the assessee was of Rs.6,28,68,218/- and the book value of the flats was of Rs.1,48,86,120/- and hence ... taxed Rs. 12,43,18,618/- by taking the fair market value of the asset on the date of transfer as the full value of construction. This includes the value of the flats received by the assessee based on the average rate of the flats in the digital image

ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Legal Heir- Smt. Lalitha Bhandari, Chennai

ITA 2785/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

correctly computed based on the Fair Market Value as on the date of transfer. Ground No. 6 - The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.99,39,998/- on account of non-Compete fees u/s 28(va) of the Act as it was based on the valuation ... UPSPL. Shares so purchased have been classified as noncurrent investment. ITA. No:2785/Chny/2024 From the above it was very evident that on the date of transfer of shares the fair value of the shares was Rs.586 while appellant restricted to the sale consideration to Rs.35 crores, which incidentally

Sadhana Annasaheb Sonwane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1636/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2013-14 Sadhana Annasabeh Sonwane Vs Ito Ward 29(3)(2), Mumbai 502/B, Sai Regency, Bhoir Nagar, Vashi Railway Station, Vidyalaya Marg, Mulund (E), 3X7X+Gqp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Mumbai 400081 6Th Tower, Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 (Pan: Aqsps7089R) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Brahme, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfca/S/250/2024-25/1072025693(1), Dated 09.01.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito-W-29(3)(2) U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.03.2016 For Ay 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “(I) The Cit(A) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Assessing Officer. (Ii) The Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Assessing Officer, Thereby Confirming The Denial Of The Benefit Under Section 54F.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Brahme, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

complete the purchase by 17.02.2015 as section 54F(1) mandates that the investment is ought to be made within 2 years from the date of transfer of original asset in case of purchase of a residential house and within 3 years in case of construction of a residential house ... provisions of Section 54F, as evidently demonstrated by registered agreement which is dated 21.06.2017 falling beyond the period of 2 years from the date of transfer of original asset, for the purchase of flat claimed by the assessee. He has placed on record a written submission along with judicial precedents

Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai The Dcit 6, Alaknanda Society Circle 1(1)(1) Sama, Vadodara 390 008. Vadodara. Pan : Acppp 2527 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Pate, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Pate, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 54

Rs.15,00,000/- had been made on 31.03.2017, which according to him fell beyond the prescribed period 3 of two years from the date of transfer for purchase under section 54. Notice under section 133(6) was also issued to Arcadia Developers on 23.11.2017 calling for, inter alia, the sale ... assessee had made substantial payments towards acquisition of the new residential property well within the prescribed period of two years from the date of transfer of the original asset. It was emphasised that the consideration was paid in stages commencing from October 2015 onwards, which fell squarely within the statutory