Which cases are most cited on Section 2(47)(i)?

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) — 228 citing judgments; Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT (260 ITR 491) — 150 citing judgments; CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (346 ITR 329) — 129 citing judgments; Sanjeev Lal v. CIT (365 ITR 389) — 122 citing judgments; CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474) — 113 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 2(47)(i)?

BharatTax indexes 13 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 2(47)(i) (Section 2(47)(i)).

← All Phrases

“Section 2(47)(i)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 2(47)(i)?

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) is the decision most relied on for Section 2(47)(i), cited in 228 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(47)(i)13 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(47)(i) is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(47)(i)

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.

CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.

346 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court

129

citing judgments

Expenses incurred for software license purchase, development of miscellaneous software, and maintenance of websites are considered revenue in nature. Such expenses are deductible in the year they are incurred.

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.

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah

355 ITR 474 · 2013 · High Court

113

citing judgments

For capital assets acquired by gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 is computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset. The period of holding for determining if an asset is long-term also includes the previous owner's holding period, as per Section 2(42A).

Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT

269 ITR 1 · 2004 · High Court

108

citing judgments

There can be no estoppel against the statute, meaning tax cannot be levied or collected without express authority of law. An appellate authority may adjudicate additional claims or legal contentions to ensure the correct tax liability is determined.

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.

98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court

104

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily reject a share valuation report prepared by an expert using recognized methods like NAV or DCF for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) without providing valid reasons to demonstrate its perversity or unreasonableness.

Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT

156 ITR 509 · 1985 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A partner's contribution of a personal asset to a partnership firm does not amount to a "transfer" for capital gains purposes under the Income-tax Act, as the consideration (the partner's interest in the firm) is indeterminate, and the computational machinery for capital gains fails.

Judgments citing Section 2(47)(i)

Raoul Thackersey, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1262/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

Khushaal C. Thackersey, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3679/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 54ESection 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM

Raoul S. Thackersey, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3678/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 54ESection 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM

Citi Corp International Finance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2)

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2732/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: 17.11.2023

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

54EC. In the first place, we are in agreement with the contention of ld. counsel for the assessee that sale as contemplated under section 2(47)(i) and extinguishment of rights as contemplated under section 2(47)(ii) are not mutually interchangeable. If a particular transaction is the transaction ... extinguishment of any right in capital asset then there was no necessity of including sale and exchange in the definition of transfer under section 2(47). It is well-settled principle of interpretation that no word in a statute is superfluous and each word has to be assigned specific meaning

Citicorp International Finance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Addl.D.I.T. (It) RG.-1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2545/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: 17.11.2023

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

Mr. Anthony P Lewis, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1813/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe &For Respondent: Smt Sailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54

however, both declined to rely upon the same. 6.3.2. Relying upon the definition of the term ‘transfer’ contained in Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, she submitted that to constitute 'transfer' in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, the possession of the Property should have been ... such a later stage. 6.4.4. In view of the above, she submitted that there was clearly transfer of Property in terms of Section 2(47)(i) of the Act. However, without prejudice to the above, she submitted that the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act were also

Pulikkaparambil George Jacob, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

said to have taken place, or capital gain arisen. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Section 2(47) of the Act, defining ‘transfer’, which is the bone of contention between the parties, and the issue arising in the instant case, reads as under ... relevant to the current assessment year. Non-completion of construction, i.e., as envisaged thereby, is only a non-discharge of the transfer consideration. Section 2(47)(vi) is clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and we find ourselves in agreement and, accordingly, have no hesitation

Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 887/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsmt. Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Flat No. 204, Grant Canyon, Opp. Hdfc Bank, Pali Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan: Acxpc0971B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-23(1)(5), Room No. 114, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 2(47)Section 54

Chadha “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CII-4A) erred in holding that provisions of section 2(47)(1) are applicable in my case ignoring the fact that the period of holding the asset was 37 months as the final payment ... transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.” 8. We have analysed the provisions of section 2(47) of the act and sec 53A of transfer of property Act, 1882. The basic crux of our analysis lies with word possession. The specific

Sri Anjaneyalu Prathipathi, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2838/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT(TP-2-DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 234

year under consideration. 14. In course of assessment proceedings, the ld.AO took the view that there was a transfer within the meaning of section 2[47] of the Act for the year under consideration and, therefore, same was brought to tax as short term capital gains. In this manner ... given possession over the same to M/s. Confident Projects India Pvt. Ltd., as the learned LD.AO has not invoked the specific provisions of section 2[47][v] of the Act in the impugned order to consider that there was a transfer of the said property was completed during the year

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

Rs.91.33 crores in assessment year under appeal on cancellation of Builder-Buyer Agreement Dated 31.03.2010 in terms of Award Dated 16.03.2017. Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act provides ‘transfer’; in relation to a capital asset, includes – (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of 88 ITA.Nos ... legal right as per Builder-Buyer Agreement and so the amount received for giving-up that right would amount to capital receipt under section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act for relinquishment of the asset or extinguishment of any right therein. It is, therefore, clear that the compensation