← All Phrases

“Section 2(47)”

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

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

Leading authorities on Section 2(47)

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
82
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)

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

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Ratna Aggarwal, Delhi

ITA 21/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer Vs. Ratna Aggarwal Room No. 1210, E-2, Krishna Nagar, Block, Civic Center, New Delhi – 110051 Minto Road, New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aefpa6066B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawali, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 56(2)

that the transaction of gift only culminated the family settlement which does not fall in the definition of ‘transfer’ for the purpose of Section 2(47) of the Act needs no interference. On the other hand, the provisions of Section 56(2

Anshu Dhawan, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmananshu Dhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.933, Sector 17B, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aggpd5365D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

compliance with the terms, conditions and stipulations laid down therein. d) In this connection, reference is also invited to the express provisions of Section 2(47) of the Act as per which "transfer" in relation to a Capital Asset includes, among others - .................................... , (v) any transaction involving the allowing

Padmaja Rajesh Harve, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5343/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethpadmaja Rajesh Harve Vs. Acit-41(1)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilyabhavan, 1201-A, 64 Greens Building, Tagore Road, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandrakurla Santacruz West, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No:Aaxph1769E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 45Section 47Section 47ASection 54Section 54F

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA

Mr Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Pune

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

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that registered development agreement with possession constitutes transfer within meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. He submitted that the purpose of assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess the correct tax liability ... both the lower authorities have given a concurrent finding that the transfer of agricultural land occurred on 20.01.2011 by virtue of provisions of section 2(47)(iv) and 2(47)(v) of the Act. He submitted that whichever stand one adopts whether conversion into stock or whether transfer of agricultural

Smt. Shree Jain, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that

ITA 2565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

that when pursuant to agreement to sale, possession of land was handed over by the assessee and sale consideration was received, provisions of section 2(47) of the Act would apply and mere fact that contract was subsequently terminated by mutual consent, would not improve case of the assessee ... wriggle out of the ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain preview of section 2(47) of the Act. In view of the above facts and authoritative precedents, there was liability to pay short term capital gain tax because the property was held for a period of less than

Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1619/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sahodhar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Muddasani Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aelpm9122N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Shri C Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.09.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Shri C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 53A

built-up area. The Ld. AO held that the execution of the JDA constituted a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and that capital gains under section 45(1) of the Act arose in the year of execution of the JDA. Accordingly ... contended Page 3 of 9 ITA No 1619 of 2025 Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani that no taxable transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act had taken place during the year under consideration, as the assessee had not received any consideration under the JDA during the relevant year

Laljibhai Parshottambhai Gaudani, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahemdabad

ITA 1238/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 27(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(5)Section 53A

regard to Definition of Transfer under 2(47): The Learned AO erred in passing the order without considering the definition of transfer’ under Section 2(47)(v), which covers transactions under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The order disregarded relevant facts, explanations, and supporting documentary evidence. Hence

Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

said that entire property have been sold at the time when agreement to sell is entered into. However, looking at the provisions of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, transfer in relation to the capital asset is complete if a right in a property is extinguished executing ... here that if capital gains are deemed to have been earned by the assessee on transfer of land as per the provisions of Section 2(47) of the Act, as per which the registration of the sale deed is not necessary, the consequences are that the seller or the assessee

Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Singh Sabharwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

allotment. Accordingly, he treated the transaction as short term rejecting the contentions of the assessee and worked out STCG in terms of section 2(47) of the Act in place of claimed LTCG. Reliance was also placed on judgement of Honorable Supreme court in the case of Suraj Lamp ... date on which the property i.e. the residential house had been acquired (transferred). It is stated that by looking at the provisions of Section 2(47) of the Act, which defines the word “transfer” in relation to a capital asset, one can say that if a right in the property

Vanraj Ranchhoddas Merchant (Through Legal Heir Harshit Merchant), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5234/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

scope of section 50C, held as under: 11. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is axiomatic that Explanation 1 to section 2(47) uses the term 'immovable property' whereas, Section 50C uses the expression 'land' instead of immovable property. It is also pertinent to mention that wherever

Lalchand Narayan Bhakt, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 2, Jalna

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

ITA 93/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)(v)

advance. 4. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He referred to the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the 3 Act and observed that there was a part performance of transfer of capital assets as the said land is located within ... Tribunal in the case of Hussain Lal Puri vs. ITO wherein it has been held that it is not necessary in terms of section 2(47)(v) of the Act that 4 the developer should have exclusive possession. The concurrent possession of the ownership is possible which gives rights

Income Tax Officer 23.2.1, Mumbai vs. Mig Co Op Housing Society Group II Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4075/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

granting the developer the right to develop the property which is clearly taxable as per provisions of Section 2(24) read with Section 2(47) and 2(14) of the Income Tax Act?" The Hon'ble Court decided the issue as under: "2. The Revenue seeks to tax the society

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

father in law nor he had handed over the possession of the subject land and consequently there was no transfer as defined under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF: 2.1 The appellant had filed his return of income ... possession of the immovable property in favour of the vendor were absent and hence there was no “transfer” within meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and consequently the said transaction could not be subject taxation under long term capital gains as computed by the learned

DCIT Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Meenu Shukla, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 175/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. Meenu Shukla, Income Tax, Circle-14(2), C-35, Sector-30, Room No.323, Cr Building, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Afyps8002B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisha Maity, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50CSection 54

that it was not necessary for the seller builder to disclose the impugned income. The appellant had submitted that a combined reading of section 2(47) of the Act r.w.s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act alluded that a “transfer” of property had taken place. It was further argued

Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 3(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 532/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that the agreement to sell notarised on 04.04.2008 clearly stated that it was without possession and, therefore, transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act took place only when possession and consideration were effectively transferred in the subsequent financial year relevant

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. 116. Equally important is the requirement of "transfer" of such capital asset. Section 2(47) of the Act defines the term "transfer" in an inclusive and expansive manner so as to bring within its fold various modes by which ... shares to the assessee. Such a transaction, therefore, constitutes an exchange and is clearly covered by the definition of "transfer" under section 2(47) of the Act. 117. The next limb of section 45 of the Act relates to the accrual of profits or gains from such transfer. The expression

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

show cause why the transfer of PI assets to M/s. Vodafone Infrastructure Ltd. be not considered as transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and subjected to capital gains as per the provisions of section 45 of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that ... Assessee to Vodafone Infrastructure Ltd qualified as 'gift' and the same could not be regarded as transfer for the purpose of Section 2(47) of the Act in terms of Section 47(III) of the Act. It was not disputed by the Revenue that the Assessee had not claimed deduction

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

show cause why the transfer of PI assets to M/s. Vodafone Infrastructure Ltd. be not considered as transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and subjected to capital gains as per the provisions of section 45 of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that ... Assessee to Vodafone Infrastructure Ltd qualified as 'gift' and the same could not be regarded as transfer for the purpose of Section 2(47) of the Act in terms of Section 47(III) of the Act. It was not disputed by the Revenue that the Assessee had not claimed deduction

Manohar Reddy Cheruku, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1625/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1625/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Manohar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Cheruku, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aelpc8785R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 53A

built-up area. The Ld. AO held that the execution of JDA on 19.01.2016 constituted a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and that capital gains under section 45(1) of the Act arose in the year of execution of JDA itself ... long-term capital gain. In this regard, the Ld. AR further submitted that no taxable event of “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act had taken place during the year under consideration. It was contended that the assessee had not received any consideration whatsoever during