← All Phrases

“possession handed over”

Capital GainsSection 53A TPASection 53A TPA33 judgments

The decision most relied on for possession handed over is Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT (260 ITR 491), cited in 150 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on possession handed over

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.

Potla Nageswara Rao v. DCIT
365 ITR 249 · 2014 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Handing over possession of property under a Development Agreement-cum-GPA in exchange for built-up area constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, triggering capital gains tax, as it satisfies the conditions under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
421 ITR 46 · 2020 · Supreme Court
33
citing judgments

Handing over possession under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

CIT v. Dr. T. K. Dayalu
14 Taxmann.com 120 · 2011 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Capital gains arise at the time of execution of a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and handing over of possession of property to the developer, due to the concept of part performance.

Ms. Pushpa Devi Tibrewala v. ITO (Hyd)(
95 ITD 363 · 2005 · ITAT
18
citing judgments

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act may not apply to transactions where possession was handed over long before the transaction and a memorandum of understanding was entered into subsequently.

Pr. CIT v. C. Gopalaswamy
384 ITR 307 · 2016 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Deduction under section 54 is allowable even if construction is incomplete or possession is not yet handed over, provided the assessee has entered into an agreement to purchase or invested capital gains towards construction. The utilization of capital gains for construction of a residential house is sufficient to claim the benefit of Section 54.

Puran Singh Sahni v. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani & Ors.
2 SCC 180 · 1991 · Reported
15
citing judgments

The essence of an agreement must be considered to determine whether it constitutes a lease or the provision of services, distinguishing between handing over possession and using equipment to provide services.

Smt. Shanta Vidya Sagar Annam v. Income Tax Officer
170 Taxmann.com 754 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Capital gains cannot be said to have accrued in the year of execution of a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) if no consideration is received and possession is handed over only for development purposes.

Judgments citing possession handed over

M.S. Builders, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Moradabad

ITA 616/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250

ITA No.616/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI ITA No.616/Del/2025 BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

141/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. 8. The development agreement was entered into on 1.6.2007, possession handed over and payment for construction fee was made on 1.11.2008 by the developer. The construction was duly completed on 8.8.2011 for which occupancy certificate was received

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

141/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. 8. The development agreement was entered into on 1.6.2007, possession handed over and payment for construction fee was made on 1.11.2008 by the developer. The construction was duly completed on 8.8.2011 for which occupancy certificate was received

Vishal Gift Centre - LLP, Indore vs. ACIT Central Circle - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

that Diversion was applied by the ultimate buyer and the assesse handed over the possession of land prior to Application filed for Diversion. The Possession handed over in Apr-13, diversion done on 31/05/2013 and Final Sale-Deed was registered in Aug 2013. Thus, in terms with Income

Shree Sai Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4616/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

monetary consideration in the form of specified constructed premises to be delivered only upon completion of construction. Since no construction was completed and no possession handed over during the year, there was no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of the Transfer

Amit Girdharbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 811/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

which acknowledged the receipt of full consideration of Rs. 1.02 crores vide cheque payments dated 07-01-2012 and also possession handed over to the buyer of the property namely Rameshbhai M. Patel, wherein Nilesh V. Shah was the Confirming Party. Based on the above transactions, the assessee filed

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Lajvantiben Rajabhai Hinduja, Rajkot

ITA 94/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS)2(1), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3068/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
Section 194ASection 201

handed over/taken over by the authority. It takes full responsibility for the care of the project site while it is under development till the possession handed over Equipment etc. brought on site cannot be removed till the completion of the development of the infrastructure facility is complete, rectify defects

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS 2 1, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3065/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 194ASection 201

handed over/taken over by the authority. It takes full responsibility for the care of the project site while it is under development till the possession handed over Equipment etc. brought on site cannot be removed till the completion of the development of the infrastructure facility is complete, rectify defects

DCIT CC - 3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3063/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024
Section 194ASection 201

handed over/taken over by the authority. It takes full responsibility for the care of the project site while it is under development till the possession handed over Equipment etc. brought on site cannot be removed till the completion of the development of the infrastructure facility is complete, rectify defects

DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3061/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024
Section 194ASection 201

handed over/taken over by the authority. It takes full responsibility for the care of the project site while it is under development till the possession handed over Equipment etc. brought on site cannot be removed till the completion of the development of the infrastructure facility is complete, rectify defects

Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2802/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 194ASection 201

handed over/taken over by the authority. It takes full responsibility for the care of the project site while it is under development till the possession handed over Equipment etc. brought on site cannot be removed till the completion of the development of the infrastructure facility is complete, rectify defects

Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

ITA 2801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 194ASection 201

handed over/taken over by the authority. It takes full responsibility for the care of the project site while it is under development till the possession handed over Equipment etc. brought on site cannot be removed till the completion of the development of the infrastructure facility is complete, rectify defects

Shital Piyushkumar Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 407/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54E

under Section 143(3) of the Act, it was observed that a portion of the property was sold on August 16, 2008, with the possession handed over to multiple parties. The total sale consideration claimed for this transaction was ₹8,25,00,000/-, which as per the Assessing Officer lacked

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Kavya Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

relevant to A.Y. 2018-19, even though the assessee has already offered capital gain for A.Y. 2019-20 on the basis of the possession handed over to the buyers. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Jhansi Rani Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 694/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

relevant to A.Y. 2018-19, even though the assessee has already offered capital gain for A.Y. 2019-20 on the basis of the possession handed over to the buyers. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Tara Chand Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 692/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

relevant to A.Y. 2018-19, even though the assessee has already offered capital gain for A.Y. 2019-20 on the basis of the possession handed over to the buyers. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 690/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

relevant to A.Y. 2018-19, even though the assessee has already offered capital gain for A.Y. 2019-20 on the basis of the possession handed over to the buyers. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there

Tara Chand Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 646/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

relevant to A.Y. 2018-19, even though the assessee has already offered capital gain for A.Y. 2019-20 on the basis of the possession handed over to the buyers. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there

Kavya Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 642/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

relevant to A.Y. 2018-19, even though the assessee has already offered capital gain for A.Y. 2019-20 on the basis of the possession handed over to the buyers. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there