“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITA 638/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

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

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

ITA 637/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

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

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji Centre 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Mumbai

ITA 2233/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Co No. 55/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2233/Mum/2021) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Private Dy. Cit, Circle-3(3)(1) Limited Mumbai 1St Floor, 41/44, S P Centre, Minoo Vs. Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

additional evidence furnished by the assessee pertains to the original agreement entered into in the year 1999 for which consideration was also received and possession handed over during 1999. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the agreement was registered during the impugned year for Rs.67

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

ITA 2025/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Bhaskar Prajapati Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT-16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3698/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 54F

same he has filed a flat diagram of all the three flats certified by the builder before us along with the agreement and possession handed over letter. He submitted that assessee has purchased one single unit which consists of three flats only for identification purpose and as far as assessee

DCIT -26(1), Mumbai vs. Shreyas Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR)

Section 2(47)(v)

transferor (land owner) with the transferee (developer) or general power of attorney for development of land has been given by the land owner and possession handed over to the transferee in part performance of the contract under section 53A of the TP Act, the provisions of section

DCIT Central Circle, Karnal vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt Ltd, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4808/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, C/O Nk Jain Adv. Sec-12, Karnal, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani Haryana Pin 132001 Haryana Pin 127021 Pan Aadcr4203L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

possession agreed. (ii) When the building is not ready to be delivered- Sale is booked on the date of the building transferred and possession handed over. The income and expenditure are accounted for on accrual basis revenue of sale of offices/shops etc is recognized on signing of title deeds

Yadla Srinivasa Rao, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 78/VIZ/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.78/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Yadla Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.20-04-190/7A Ward-3(2) Basavataraka Nagar Vijayawada Ayodhya Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Abfpy5447F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.Madhusudan, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C

specific adjudication. 6. Ground No.2 and 3 are related to the delivery of possession of impugned property. The Ld.AR submitted that there was no possession handed over to the assessee, by the landlords, viz., Sri Suresh Babu and Smt. Vasanthi and that such possession is to be given only upon

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

have • cancelled the penalty in toto. Rs.9,62,91,447/- 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there was no possession handed over as required under the Act and hence the capital gain determined itself is bad in law. Rs.9,62,91,447/- 4. The learned

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4876/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

liable to pay capital gain in the year 2008-09, in as much as 09, in as much as there was no possession handed over to the there was no possession handed over to the developer under Section developer under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4875/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 3773/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Maxworth Infrasqwtructrure P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

timing difference and income from these properties has already been shown in A.Y. 2015-16 when the sale deeds were executed and possession handed over. In the assessment order, the AO has not brought any material on record to controvert the contentions of the appellant. Considering the facts and judicial