← All Phrases

“Section 2(47)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(47)570 judgments

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TARUN SANTRAMDAS VARMA, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2549/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 250Section 46A

inclusive definition. The above definition is also significantly different from the definition of immovable property under Section 269UA (d) r/w Section 2(47) (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act wherein the term immovable property would include rights in or with respect to such immovable property. Therefore, there

GIRISH BHALCHANDRA SATHE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 429/MUM/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 53A

2. The CIT(A) failed to consider that the transfer was completed in F.Y. 2014 15 within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income tax Act, read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, as possession and rights were transferred pursuant to the earlier agreement. Consequently ... void ab initio, and liable to be quashed, as the AO failed to examine the year of transfer under Section 2(47) r.w.s. Section 53A failed to apply the first proviso to Section 50C and mechanically invoked Section 50C without following the statutory procedure. 8. The appellant craves leave

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

given some rights to the vendor and reduced or extinguished rights of the assessee. This, it was observed was sufficient the purpose of Section 2(47), which defines the term transfer in relation to a capital asset. in the light of the factual matrix, it was observed that the intention

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. VARUN JAISINGH ASHER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 8251/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Shengde, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(x)

constitute a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and the surrender thereof amounts to a transfer under section 2(47) of the Act. The allotment of a residential flat by the developer under the redevelopment scheme represents consideration received in exchange for such surrender

BILESHIVALE MUDDANNA GOVARDHANA MURTHY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 2193/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain VP, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 250

held that the issue is not whether a registered sale deed was executed, but whether there was a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. The AO opined that under section 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer includes any transaction which allows possession of immovable

BILESHIVALE MUDDANNA GOVARDHANA MURTHY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

ITA 2192/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain VP, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 250

held that the issue is not whether a registered sale deed was executed, but whether there was a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. The AO opined that under section 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer includes any transaction which allows possession of immovable

VINOD YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA

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

ITA 398/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(ii)Section 50CSection 53A

Haryana High Court\non the issue of transfer of land between the landlord and the developer\nwith reference to Section 53A read with section 2(47)(v) of the Act.\nSimilarly, the co-ordinate bench in case of Fardeen Khan vs. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax-11 (1), Mumbai ... filed a\nfurther appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal held that there was\nno transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. This was for the reason of\nan amendment made in 2001 to the Indian Registration Act, wherein a transfer

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C

Book. Considering all these facts, we are of the view\nthat no transfer of any property had taken place within the meaning\nof Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and therefore, accordingly, no capital\ngain has arisen to be taxed u/s 45 and 48 of the Act. We further ... Haryana High Court\non the issue of transfer of land between the landlord and the\ndeveloper with reference to Section 53A read with section 2(47)(v) of\nthe Act. Similarly, the co-ordinate bench in case of Fardeen Khan vs.\nAssistant Commissioner of Income-tax-11 (1), Mumbai

YERRAGUDI VENKATA SIVA REDDY,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

ITA 1294/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1294/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Yerragudi Venkata Siva Reddy, Ananthapur The Acit, Vs. Pin – 515 001. Circle-1, Pan Aampy0365L Kurnool. Andhra Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 2(47)(ii)Section 48

direct and proximate connection with the transfer consideration and is fully deductible under Section 48. 3. Extinguishment of rights amounts to transfer under Section 2(47)(ii) The learned CIT(A) has overlooked that the demolition resulted in the extinguishment of the assessee's ownership rights in the building ... event squarely falling within the ambit of "transfer" as defined in Section 2(47)(ii). "Section 2(47)(ii) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 The "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes, the extinguishment of any rights therein" This interpretation has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

SEETA NAYYAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -OSD-IN SITU ITO-19(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6714/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiaseeta Nayyar, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Flat No.5, Rockdale, In Situ, Ito, 19(3)(3), Vs. Ld Ruparel Marg, Mumbai Mumbai - 400006 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. Ar (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR
Section 54

into their shares. Of course, additionally, the monetary amount. Thus, in our view, there was a transfer of capital asset in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act. The capital asset transferred was the existing immovable property in lieu of which assessee and her husband received the constructed area

LATE RAMA KUMARI MUNNA REPRESENTED BY SHRI SHIVAYYA MUNNA HUSBAND LEGAL HEIR,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

ITA 541/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250

lower authorities have erred in holding that the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 18.03.2016 constituted a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the following: (i) That the JDA did not effectuate any identifiable transfer of property, inasmuch

CHERIE TANDON SALDAHNA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 6576/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)

raised before the Hon'ble High Court:-\n\"(i)\nWhether the transactions in hand envisage a \"transfer\" exigible\nto tax by reference to section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with\nsection 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?\n(ii)\nWhether the Income ... rights\nemanating from the JDA, legal effect of non registration of JDA, its alleged\nrepudiation etc.?\n(iii)\nWhether \"possession\" as envisaged by section 2(47)(v) and\nsection 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 was delivered, and if so, its\nnature and legal effect

SHATRUGHAN K. PATIL,THAKURLI vs. ASST.COMM.INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, THANE

ITA 964/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jhaveri and Shri Dharmil Jhaveri, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(47)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

relinquishment of the right of receive the profit is transfer\n- 3 -:\nITA No.2986/Chny/2025\nManikandan\nwithin the definition section 2 (47) of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O treated\nthe entire amount received by the assessee as short term capital gains in the\nhands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed ... sharing ratio has been\nreduced from 12% to 5.88%, thereby, the Assessing Officer held that it\namounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. It is also\nan admitted fact that the erstwhile partners have not retired and they\ncontinued to be the partners along

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

erred in not appreciating that for the purpose of section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot ... erred in not appreciating that for the purpose g that for the purpose of section 43CA. the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be section 43CA. the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be section 43CA. the definition

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5319/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

erred in not appreciating that for the purpose of section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot ... erred in not appreciating that for the purpose g that for the purpose of section 43CA. the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be section 43CA. the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be section 43CA. the definition

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1375/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(47)

offered the capital gain, if any, that arose from this transaction as exchange is also treated as transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of IT Act, 1961. In absence of any satisfactory details, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the entire transaction appears to be sham

NAROTTAM ATMARAM WARDE,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

However, in para 5.1, Assessing Officer states that there was a development agreement entered into by Assessee and hence, Assessing Officer has invoked Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. ITA No.3139/PUN/2025 [A] 8. We have perused the agreement referred by Assessing Officer. Ld.AR has filed copy of the said

BHARAT MANUBHAI PATEL,MALAD vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6587/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250

added back with total income of the assessee. The addition was confirmed by virtue of the section 2(47) of the Act related to transfer in relation to capital asset. The assessee stated that both the sales of the alleged flats are carried profit at the rate ... that the transfer of the property was executed during the impugned assessment year through a registered agreement. He contended that, by virtue of section 2(47) of the Act, the transfer of a capital asset is deemed to have taken place in the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, the assessee

ZARIR RUSTOM JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6455/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Mr. Zarir Rustom Joshi, Income Tax Officer, 26, Heera Meher, 108, Ward -17(3)(5) Room No.116, 1St Floor, Wood House Road, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai – 400 005 Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aahpj9575G (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 53ASection 54E

have erred in holding that the execution of development agreement on 08.03.2000 does not amount to transfer as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") since the pre-requisites of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are not fulfilled

Showing 1–20 of 570 · Page 1 of 29

...