← 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)

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

Kamani Foods Private Limited ('KFPL') of Rs.42,12,27,550/- as claimed by the Appellant does not constitute "transfer' within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. Ground 4 The PCIT erred in holding that loss of Rs.29,95,00,000/- on waiver of loan given to KPFL ... does not constitute 'transfer' within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. Ground 5 - The PCIT erred in holding that the claim of bad debt of Rs.3,42,57,549/- is inadmissible u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act as there is no evidence to establish that

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 254(1)Section 45(4)Section 48

complete reply and other documents as called for. The Assessing Officer records that assessee filed further submissions and by referring to provisions of section 2(47), the assessee has stated that no long-term capital gain is assessable in their hand.No land or property has been transferred or sold; hence ... year in which the transfer of asset takes place. There is no transfer of any asset of the firm as defined in section 2(47) of the Act as of date, consequently, there is no applicability of provisions of section 45(4) of the Act. The assessee has unilaterally passed

ITO, Sirsa vs. Sh. Mahabir Singh, Sirsa

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the Revenue

ITA 900/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 900/Chd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Ito, Shri Mahabir Singh, Ward – 2, Vs S/O Shri Het Ram, Vpo Bani, Sirsa. Tehsil-Rania, Distt. Sirsa. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdvpm5319N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vineet Krishan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Sathyabama Ramachandran, Alwarthirunagar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghava Simhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

credit of revalued amount to the capital account of partners in their respective share ratio does not entail any transfer as defined under section 2(47) of the Act. The induction of Elior India to CRCL and the amount received from Elior India towards 51% of shares and consequent reduction ... introduced into an existing partnership firm, the profit sharing ratios undergo a change, which does not amount to transfer as defined under section 2(47) of the Act, as there is no change in the ownership of assets by the partnership firm. As during the subsistence of the partnership firm

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi vs. Sanjay Kumar Nagalia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3191/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nagalia, Ward 29(1), New Delhi. C – 6/61, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi – 110 016. (Pan :Afwpn8178F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 23.09.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 2(47)

above said property become due as per the Act as the transfer of the property is complete as per provisions of section 2(47) of the Act. 3 4. During assessment proceedings, the assessee had repeatedly submitted that the cheques issued by the buyer in consideration for sale

Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 2137/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Balusamy, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234Section 251Section 53A

property to Mr. Srinath Hebbar in terms of any registered agreement of sale entered into during the year and therefore, the provisions of section 2[47][v] of the Act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not attracted to the case of the appellant under ... behalf of the assessee. Further stated the transaction could not be treated as transfer under the Transfer of Property Act or under section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act. The assessee stated that only in cases where possession is given within the meaning of transfer under Transfer of Property

Rajni Kumar Wife of Shri Brig. Narender Kumar H.No.394, Sector-21, Gurgaonn, Gurgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3188/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

gain, relevant observation of their Lordships reads as under: - “22. In addition to the fact that the term "transfer" has been defined under section 2(47) of the Act, even if 12 looked at the provisions of section 54 of the Act which gives relief to a person ... regard to the interpretation of statute pertaining to the tax laws, one can very well interpret the provisions of section 54 read with section 2(47) of the Act, i.e., the definition of "transfer", which would enable the appellants to get the benefit under section

Ramaiah Pushpavathi, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 855/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT DR
Section 147Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 53ASection 68

case. 9. The learned Assessing Authority failed to appreciate that there is no transfer of capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act or section 53A of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 during the assessment year under appeal and hence there is no taxable

Sunil Khadawala Legal Heir of Manhar Khadawala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee succeeds on all substantive issues

ITA 4635/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 57

view of the same, the amount so received does not qualify as 'capital gain' as it does not involve transfer In terms of section 2(47) of the Act. Thus, the said compensation of Rs. 75.95.230/-does not fall under any of the four heads of income i.e. Income from

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

date, on which the assessee received the possession of the land, there is a transfer of the land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) and the assessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it. c. Since the assessee is owner of the building

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

date, on which the assessee received the possession of the land, there is a transfer of the land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) and the assessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it. c. Since the assessee is owner of the building

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

date, on which the assessee received the possession of the land, there is a transfer of the land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) and the assessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it. c. Since the assessee is owner of the building

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

date, on which the assessee received the possession of the land, there is a transfer of the land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) and the assessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it. c. Since the assessee is owner of the building

Giriraj Prasad, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Bundi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148wSection 263Section 54F

sell is entered into. In normal circumstances, the aforestated question has to be answered in the negative. However, 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 ... extinguished by execution of an agreement to sell, the capital asset can be deemed to have been transferred. Relevant portion of Section 2(47), defining the word "transfer" is as under: '2(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes, - (i) xxxx xxxx (ii) the extinguishment of any rights

Devi Dayal, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

submitted that possession was handed over by the assessee to the second party, meaning thereby, transfer has taken place within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. In other words, if sub-clause (vi) of Section ... immovable property would constitute transfer. Thus, according to him, the case of the assessee falls within sub- clause (iv) and (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. 11. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. There is no dispute

ITO, Mumbai vs. Vatika Rayons Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2895/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 68

holder of such allotment would be recognized as a member of the investee company. Such a transaction would attract the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act The extinguishments of any rights therein as appeared in section 2/47) of the Act, covers every possible transaction resulting in the destruction

Suman Devi, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Suman Devi Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna

For Appellant: Shri Sudeep Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 2(47)

been made on 10.03.2013. 4 Suman Devi Admittedly, the registration has been done only on 04.04.2013. A perusal of the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act which is relied on by the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) and also the assessee, is in relation to transfer ... immovable property. The said section is in relation to the computation of capital gains. The provisions of section 2(47) of the Act does not apply to the facts of the present case. This is not a case of sale of immovable property but is a case of purchase. Regarding

Natesan Ekambaram, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54

said power of attorney. Hence, by mere execution of the GPA, no transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act had taken place in favour of Shri V.R.Anbuvelrajan. Moreover, the GPA holder is not the buyer of the vacant land held ... pursuance of a registered instrument, coupled with actual consideration from the purchaser, the same cannot be regarded as “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. 32. In the instant case, the recitals of the registered sale deed dated 14.10.2013 clearly indicate that the full value

Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

held that the rights acquired by assessee in such manner through power of attorney, would have been considered, ‘transfer’ within the meaning of section 2(47)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, 5 A.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui since the circumstances indicated that he had retained the share that would ... right of cross examination to the assessee, denial of the benefit of the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and improper application of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It appears that many of these grounds have been

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

56. As a result, as regards the issue of allowance/disallowance of

ITA 1099/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

addition of Rs.361, 43,689/-, relating to the capital loss, that was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to provisions of section 2(47) of the Act. 23. Arguments heard. Files perused. 25. As noticed above, the assessee is a public Limited company, having its registered office at Gadepan ... transfer" under the Act Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the term "transfer" is defined as under: Per Section 2(47) "transfer, in relation to a capital asset, includes,- 1. The sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or 2. The extinguishment of any rights