← 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)

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3142/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3141/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

DCIT, Chennai vs. K.Dhandapani and Co. Ltd., Chengalput

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Corporate Circle-4(2), No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O No.109/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.1428/Chny/2017] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., The Dcit, No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-4(2), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45

this as a capital asset and profit therefore is a capital receipt. In the absence of concrete documentary proof, it is clear that section 2(47) r.w.s 45 attracts in this case and hence profit no sale of the asset is bought to tax under the head “Capital Gain

Biswajit Bose, New Panvel vs. Pr CIT -1, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and order of Ld

ITA 1322/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shree Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbiswajit Bose B103, Balaji Niwas, Plot No-107-108, Sector-8, New Panvel, Panvel-410206 Pan No. Acxpb9332K ....Appellant Pr Cit-1 Thane Room No-7, 6The Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-400604 ...Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma & S.SriramFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 263

department the assessee had relinquished his rights over the property vide development agreement which come under the definition of transfer as the define section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, assessee was liable for capital gains for assessment year 2013-14. Accordingly, the case was the assessee ... remaining portion was to be kept by builder. In such facts and circumstances, the Court held that no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) (v) would take place until the builder constructed said property and handed over a portion of the same to assessee as per terms

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

Karnataka High Court in the T.K. Dayalu decision. The Chaturbhuj decision lists out 6 conditions for satisfaction of Part Performance as per Section 2(47)(v) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The conditions specified in the said case law and their ... taxability is the year in which the JDA is entered into. 23. Before proceeding further we will look at the relevant provisions Section 2(47) of the Act (47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset ; or (ii) the extinguishment

M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

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

ITA 3243/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2913/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Salem. Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903. [Pan:Aabck1431D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3243/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Circle I, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 903. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Dated 01.03.2018 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

favour of Shri P. Parameswaran of Tirupattur and received amount to the extent of ₹.3,00,78,887/-. As per section 2(47)(iv) of the Act, any transaction by way of agreement or arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment ... handed over possession to Shri P. Parameswaran for consideration of ₹.3,00,78,887/- and thus satisfies all the ingredients laid down in section 2(47)(iv) of the Act and the said 9 I.T.A. Nos.2913/Chny/18 & 3243/Chny/19 amount was treated as sale consideration received and brought to tax. On appeal

Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Harur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 2913/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2913/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Salem. Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903. [Pan:Aabck1431D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3243/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Circle I, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 903. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Dated 01.03.2018 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

favour of Shri P. Parameswaran of Tirupattur and received amount to the extent of ₹.3,00,78,887/-. As per section 2(47)(iv) of the Act, any transaction by way of agreement or arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment ... handed over possession to Shri P. Parameswaran for consideration of ₹.3,00,78,887/- and thus satisfies all the ingredients laid down in section 2(47)(iv) of the Act and the said 9 I.T.A. Nos.2913/Chny/18 & 3243/Chny/19 amount was treated as sale consideration received and brought to tax. On appeal

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

observing that all these case laws address the issue of whether redemption of preference shares would amount to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. In these cases, the investment of the assessee in preference shares were redeemed which resulted in some capital gains ... 47) of the Income tax Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the redemption of preference shares amounted to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income tax Act and the assessee was liable to pay the tax on capital gains it received. But the issue in dispute

M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Banglaoore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

observing that all these case laws address the issue of whether redemption of preference shares would amount to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. In these cases, the investment of the assessee in preference shares were redeemed which resulted in some capital gains ... 47) of the Income tax Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the redemption of preference shares amounted to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income tax Act and the assessee was liable to pay the tax on capital gains it received. But the issue in dispute

Shri. Gangahanumaiah Lakshminarayana, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(5), Bangalore

ITA 1250/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri N.P.S. Sundar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 2(47)Section 234BSection 45Section 54B

appellant is in lieu of iii) transfer of such rights. relinquishment of easementary rights amounts to transfer in iv) terms of section 2(47) of the Act the appellant is liable to be assessed under the head Capital v) Gains the appellant is not eligible for deduction u/s 54B/54F

Shri Ganadhiraj Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) -40, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5351/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 80P

learned CIT(A) vide impugned order upheld the assessment order, by observing as under: ―6.4 Thus, the main conditions for transfer as per section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of the transfer of property Act, which are contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property and taking over ... view of the above it cannot be said that the transfer of property has taken place before 20.5.2009 on account of provisions of section 2(47)(v). As discussed above, the "agreement for development of vacant plot" was entered into on 20.5.2009 and the same has been registered

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)

documents together, the assessing authority held that the transfer was complete during the relevant year by virtue of the provisions of 111r111111111N11111100111111MEremil Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and accordingly the capital gains was required to be assessed to tax in the relevant year. The assessing authority declined ... accept the explanation of the assessee that the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act had no application since M/s. IDEB was not put in possession of the property in question before the end of the financial year relevant to the assessment year. Consequently, the long-term capital

Kohinoor Textiles Printing Works, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT WD 22(1), Mumbai

ITA 2836/MUM/2013[203-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Kohinoor Textiles Asst. Commissioner Of Income Printing Works, Tax, M/S. J.J. Mehra & Co., Ward-22(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 11 Laxmi Building, 2Nd Floor, Off. Turner Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aaafk2198P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 08 . 2022

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R
Section 2Section 45

there is conversation of the capital asset into stock in trade and the process of conversion amounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2 (47) of the Income Tax Act.The liability of capital gain arises in the year in which the asset is converted into stock in trade ... assessee has converted its assets to the stock in trade and the process of conversion amounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. Assessing Officer (AO) also has taken the view that the liability of capital gain arises in the year in which the asset

Kohinoor Textiles Printing Works, Mumbai vs. DCIT WD 22(1), Mumbai

ITA 2514/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Kohinoor Textiles Asst. Commissioner Of Income Printing Works, Tax, M/S. J.J. Mehra & Co., Ward-22(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 11 Laxmi Building, 2Nd Floor, Off. Turner Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aaafk2198P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 08 . 2022

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R
Section 2Section 45

there is conversation of the capital asset into stock in trade and the process of conversion amounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2 (47) of the Income Tax Act.The liability of capital gain arises in the year in which the asset is converted into stock in trade ... assessee has converted its assets to the stock in trade and the process of conversion amounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. Assessing Officer (AO) also has taken the view that the liability of capital gain arises in the year in which the asset

Kohinoor Textile Printing Works, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 22(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 3923/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Kohinoor Textiles Asst. Commissioner Of Income Printing Works, Tax, M/S. J.J. Mehra & Co., Ward-22(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 11 Laxmi Building, 2Nd Floor, Off. Turner Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aaafk2198P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 08 . 2022

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R
Section 2Section 45

there is conversation of the capital asset into stock in trade and the process of conversion amounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2 (47) of the Income Tax Act.The liability of capital gain arises in the year in which the asset is converted into stock in trade ... assessee has converted its assets to the stock in trade and the process of conversion amounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. Assessing Officer (AO) also has taken the view that the liability of capital gain arises in the year in which the asset

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Suratchandra B. Thakkar -HUF, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

ITA 4335/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-30(3), Shri Suratchandra B. Thakkar C-13, 5Th Floor, R. No. 510, (Huf), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tipco Compound, Rani Sati Bandra (East), Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aaaht 0788 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

covered within the definition of transfer as business asset will not be covered within the definition of transfer as prescribed under section 2(47) of the IT Act. Transferring such prescribed under section 2(47) of the IT Act. Transferring such prescribed under section 2(47 ... under land owner to the Developer as per definition of transfer under land owner to the Developer as per definition of transfer under section 2(47) and there is no incidence of tax till section 2(47) and there is no incidence of tax till the right

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Suratchandra B. Thakkar -HUF, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

ITA 4334/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-30(3), Shri Suratchandra B. Thakkar C-13, 5Th Floor, R. No. 510, (Huf), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tipco Compound, Rani Sati Bandra (East), Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aaaht 0788 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

covered within the definition of transfer as business asset will not be covered within the definition of transfer as prescribed under section 2(47) of the IT Act. Transferring such prescribed under section 2(47) of the IT Act. Transferring such prescribed under section 2(47 ... under land owner to the Developer as per definition of transfer under land owner to the Developer as per definition of transfer under section 2(47) and there is no incidence of tax till section 2(47) and there is no incidence of tax till the right

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Suratchandra B. Thakkar -HUF, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

ITA 4333/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-30(3), Shri Suratchandra B. Thakkar C-13, 5Th Floor, R. No. 510, (Huf), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tipco Compound, Rani Sati Bandra (East), Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aaaht 0788 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

covered within the definition of transfer as business asset will not be covered within the definition of transfer as prescribed under section 2(47) of the IT Act. Transferring such prescribed under section 2(47) of the IT Act. Transferring such prescribed under section 2(47 ... under land owner to the Developer as per definition of transfer under land owner to the Developer as per definition of transfer under section 2(47) and there is no incidence of tax till section 2(47) and there is no incidence of tax till the right

Mr. Mahesh D. Saini, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-35(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1929/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1929/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Mr. Mahesh D. Saini बिधम/ Ito, Ward-35(2)(3) 203, Lukhi Niwas Kailash Room No. 745, 7Th Floor, Vs. Puri, Upper Govind Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Plot No. 135, Malad (E), C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai-400097. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1048M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh B. Shah Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai Dated 28.02.2020 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,05,37,002/- As Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Treating The Purported Capital Asset As Transfer In View Of The Provisions Of Section 2(47) (V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) R.W. Section 53A Of The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (4 Of 1882) (Hereinafter In Short As “Topa”). 3. Brief Facts Of The Case As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A) Is That The Ao Noticed That During The Year, The Assessee Jointly With His Two (2) Brothers, Viz Shri Formal Dedrajmali Alias Sainik/Siani & Shri Kailash Dedraj Mali Alias Sainik/Saini, Entered Into Sale Cum

For Appellant: Shri Haresh B. ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr
Section 2(47)Section 50CSection 53A

Rs.1,05,37,002/- as long term capital gain (LTCG) treating the purported capital asset as transfer in view of the provisions of Section 2(47) (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) r.w. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) (hereinafter ... year from him. For adjudicating this issue, we need to look into the certain relevant provisions. First of all let us look at Section 2(47) of the Act which is reproduced as under: - “Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (47) “transfer”, in relation to a capital