← 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)

Crystal Mercantiles Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 957/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 58A

Property according to the provisions of section 58A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and so also to attract the provisions of section 2(47)(v) / (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when no control over the possession of the Land was not given to the Developer ... which the assessee agreed to give possession of his portion of land. Thus, there was transfer of land as per section 2(47)(v) and (vi) of the Act but the assessee did not offer the long term capital gains on the same. The assessment was reopened and notice

Shardindu Prasad Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

question of capital gain as on the date of execution of development agreement does not arise. 8. Ld. AO has erred in invoking section 2(47)(v), 45 and 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and section 53A of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the facts ... limited right to construct the approved building at his own cost can never be akin to or equal to possession as envisaged in section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer also failed

Naveen Kumar Musinipally, Usa vs. ADIT (Int-Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly

ITA 323/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

above legal grounds, the Ld.CIT (A) and the Ld.AQ failed to appreciate that there was no "Transfer" within the meaning of section 2(47) (v) of the Act since the possession of the land on the date of development agreement still vests with the Assessee. Therefore erred in taxing ... agreement in the subject AY. ITA.No.323/Hyd./2024 5. Without prejudice to ground no.4, that there is no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act during the subject AY, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the value of the land

B S Somasekhar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1545/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14 Mr. Bommanayakanahalli Siddaiah Somashekhar, Vs. Ito, #51/4 21St Main, 22Nd Cross, Behind Maruthi Ward – 5(1)(1), Mandira, Vijaynagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 040, Karnataka. Pan : Ainps 4894 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Adarsh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Adarsh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 148Section 2(47)

time. The only step not taken was the execution of a formal conveyance. For income tax purposes, the transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act was complete. By virtue of not executing a formal conveyance, assessee subsequently executed registered JDA, GPA and Sharing Agreement during Financial ... property was transferred in favour of Shri. Pradeep Krishna in the year 1997-98 by registered GPA. Therefore as per provisions of section 2(47) of the Act, the transfer was duly covered under section 2(47) of the Act. Therefore assessee is not liable for capital gain tax arising

Dimple Rajesh Oswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

question is what is the point of time it is to be construed that transfer has taken place within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act. According to the Hon'ble High Court if possession of a property is being taken then, it is to be construed that ... Counsel for the assessee, we deem it appropriate to note following observation of the Hon'ble High Court: “12. Sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(47) of the Act states that the transfer, in relation to a capital asset, includes the extinguishment of any rights therein. In Sanjeev

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

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

Module Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1792/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

transfer of capital asset. The relevant portion of the Head Note in the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme is as follows :- Section 2(47), read with sections 45 and 48, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains -Transfer (Joint Development Agreement) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether where

Balajee Infratech & Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

merely because it was made to a Power of Attorney holder rather than the owner. 12.1. The legislative framework itself provides the answer. Section 2(47)(vi) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 1987, expressly recognizes the concept of transfer through enjoyment of property rights by virtue ... following terms:- FINANCE ACT, 1987 “Definition of transfer widened to include certain transactions 11.1 The existing definition of the word transfer in section 2(47) does not include transfer of certain rights accruing to a purchaser, by way of becoming a member of or acquiring shares in a co-operative

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sonaben Anilkumar Variya, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1677/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) Sonaben Anilkumar Variya Ahmedabad. Arhum Elegans Aec Cross Road City Naranpura Vistar So Ahmedabad. Pan : Amwpv 5380 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09 /10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 2(47)

purchasers had deducted TDS on such Banakhat amounts, the same did not render the transactions taxable since no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act had taken place. The assessee also furnished a reconciliation between Form 26AS and the return of income, pointing out that transactions ... represented Banakhat (agreement to sell) transactions which did not culminate in 5 registered sale deeds and, therefore, did not amount to transfer under section 2(47) of the Act. The CIT(A), accepting this explanation, deleted the addition. 5.2 It is an admitted position that in respect of such Banakhat

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Visakhapatnam

ITA 374/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.374/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aatpp2493B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: P. Murali & Co राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 07/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: P. Murali & CoFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

efficacy in law for purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, TPA, and, thus, cannot trigger Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini ... relied on Clause 17 of the JDA, which envisaged handing over of possession to the developer for commencing and completing construction, and invoked Section 2(47)(v) of the Act r.w. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("TPA"), and computed long-term capital gain

Hanmandlu Pampati, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.228/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2013-14) 1. Shri Srinivas Pampati, Karimnagar. Pan: Abopp0603R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar. आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.229/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2013-14) 2. Shri Hanmandlu Pampati, Karimnagar. Pan: Abmpp0324R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri Lalith Kishore Sharma, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: | Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख /Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : These Two Appeals Are Filed By Shri Srinivas Pampati & Shri Hanmandlu Pampati ("The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)"), Dated 04.12.2024 & 05.12.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessees Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kishore SharmaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 154Section 48Section 54F

been received by the assessee or the other landowners during the year under consideration from the developer. Therefore, the requirement of "transfer" under section 2(47)(v) of the Act was not satisfied. He also invited our attention to para no. 4.5.1 of the order of the Ld. AO, wherein ... under construction and had not been completed. In view of these facts, he argued that there was no “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act and, therefore, no capital gains could be brought to tax under section 45(1) of the Act in the impugned

Srinivas Pampati, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kishore SharmaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54F

been received by the assessee or the other landowners during the year under consideration from the developer. Therefore, the requirement of “transfer” under section 2(47)(v) of the Act was not satisfied. He also invited our attention to para no. 4.5.1 of the order of the Ld. AO, wherein ... under construction and had not been completed. In view of these facts, he argued that there was no “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act and, therefore, no capital gains could be brought to tax under section 45(1) of the Act in the impugned

R. Jayanna HUF, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 986/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 54F

According to the AO, such agreement amounts to the transfer of property within the meaning of the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, the AO computed the long-term capital gain of ₹60,11,919 and added it to the total income of the assessee

Suvarna Chandrakant Bhojane, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1997/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Suvarna Chandrakant Bhojane Ito 42(3)(4) Flat No. 401, 4Th Floor, Wadhwa Kautilya Bhavan Group, Boulevard-3, Lbs Marg Vs. Bandra Kurla Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400 Complex, Bandra-E 086. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Agipb2777K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Agarwal
Section 2(47)(vi)Section 50C

decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini 12 SCC 354 and held that section 2(47)(vi) of the Act and its definition of “transfer” is applicable to transfer of immovable properties and not the transfer of title. In the impugned ... decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kartikeya Sarabhai Vs. CIT 94 Taxman 164 (SC) for the proposition that section 2(47) of the Act is an inclusive definition and provides for the relinquishment of an asset or right therein. Hence, the entire amount received as compensation

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

relevant to impugned assessment year, the assessee’s rights in the said flat have got extinguished and resultant transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act, the AO should have determined the loss on account of such transfer and the assessee be allowed necessary set-off/carry

Punam Sinha, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 298/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Punam Sinha, Near Shiv Mandir, Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Khajpura, Patna-800014,Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 06.06.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -2/11391/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 301 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That At The Time Of Ld Cit(A) Passed The Order, The Assessee Was Suffering From Spine Diseases & Also Eye Disease I.E. Glucoma. Due To This Fact, She Was Not Unable To Look After Her Day-To-Day Business. It Is Also Stated That Assessee Being A Lady Was Not Conversant With P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53A

such, the provision of section 53A of T.P. Act attracted the capital gain arising out of such transfer as per the provision of section 2(47) (v) 45 and 48 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO computed the capital gain of Rs.13,50,589/- and created demand accordingly. Being aggrieved

Jai Prakash Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 297/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jai Prakash Singh, Near Shiv Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Mandir, Khajpura, Patna- 800014, Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 21.08.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/11368/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 239 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Assessee Being A Senior Citizen & Was Not Conversant With The Computer System. The Notices Were Issued To The Assessee By The Ld Cit(A) In The Income Tax Portal & Since The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Notices, No Submissions As Well As Paper Book Was Filed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53A

capital gain arising out of such transfer as per the P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2015-16 provision of section 2(47) (v) 45 and 48 of he Act. Accordingly, the AO computed the capital gain of Rs.13,50,589/- and created demand accordingly. Being aggrieved

Shree Sai Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4616/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

construction. Since no construction was completed and no possession handed over during the year, there was no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It was thus submitted that the addition of ₹6,04,16,000/- was premature

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2378/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 253

control, management, or underlying assets of SBL (Le, not a transfer, within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2(47) of the Act), (b) the consequent tax on the capital gain accrued to MA/GIMD, is clearly and exclusively allocated to France under the provisions of Article

Maimoon Fashion Accessories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5010/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kadam, Sr.DR
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45

over possession to Smt. Joheratussharaf Saifuddin (the Purchaser') pursuant to an oral agreement. The transfer, therefore, stood completed in AY 2010-11 under section 2(47) of the Act, and no tax liability would arise in any other year in connection with the transfer that took place ... case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) and Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the transaction constituted a "transfer" as per section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act in AY 2010-11, since all material rights including possession were transferred