“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

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)

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Cirlce -1(2), Hyderabad vs. Amsri Infra Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1107/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 2(47)(v)Section 37(1)

ought to have observed that as the assessing officer accepted that there was no scope for invoking the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C ... ought to have observed that as the assessing officer accepted that there was no scope for invoking the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Cirlce -1(2), Hyderabad vs. Amsri Builders Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1104/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 2(47)(v)Section 37(1)

Shailesh Thaksen Bankhele (Legal Heir of Late. Thaksen Sopan Bankhele), Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(2), Pune

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

ITA 475/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.475/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shailesh Thaksen Bankhele V The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Thaksen S Ward-10(2), Pune. Sopan Bankhele), Sai Namdeo Park, Flat No.12 B-Ii, Near Mhadha Housing Society, Morwadi, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Agfpb8295D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 196, Ludhiana 23.02.2024For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 250o

therefore, not liable to tax. 3. The Ld. AO erred in (Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming) in applying the provision of section 2(47)(v) and considering the Capital Gain for AY 2011-12. 4. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that by executing the joint

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 968/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

which according to him was liable to be taxed under the head 'capital gain' u/s.45 as it involves transfer as per Section 2(47) of the Act and the capital asset as defined u/s. 2(14). Before the ld. AO, it was stated by the assessee that the compensation

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Rasik Kunverji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1000/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Jt.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 267/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr DR & Sh

Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)Section 72

similarly when squaring up was on expiry of the contract, it should be treated as extinguishment of rights in capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Grace Collis ... held that the definition of transfer in section 2(47) contemplates the extinguishment of the rights in a capital asset as distinct and independent of such extinguishment consequent upon the transfer. Thus, he held that on expiry of derivatives there was a transfer of a capital asset. He further observed

Bhattacharya Rubber Works (1964) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2084/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2084/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhattacharya Rubber Works (1964) Pvt. Ltd …….………………....Appellant 965, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcb8997M] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata ……............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. As Per Information Available With Income Tax Department, The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property For Rs.5,70,13,000/- During The F.Y 2016-17 Relevant To A.Y. 2017-18. Based On The Information, The Assessing Officer Believed That Income Had Escaped Assessment & Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 23.03.2021 With The Approval Of The Competent Authority. However, The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income In Compliance To The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act. Furthermore, A Questionnaire U/S 142(1) Dated 18.11.2021 Was Issued

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

examine the leasehold deed and JDA submitted by the assessee verifying whether there was any transfer of right within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act during the year and pass a de novo assessment order after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In terms

Anirban Dutta, Palashan, P.O. Palashan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1527/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1527/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Anirban Dutta, Vs Ito, Court Compound, Burdwan Palashan, Dist : Purba Bardhaman Pan No. :Akvpd 6128 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belatedly By Only 1 Day. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Delay Of One Day In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Assessee In Its Appeal Has Raised Following Grounds :- 1. For That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Others Weight Of Evidence On Record, The Order Passed By Cit(A), Npac, Delhi In Appeal Case No Citia)/Bwn/10087/2015-16 On Dismissing Appeal Alleging Non-Compliance Of Notices Of Hearing Sent By E-Mail Instead Of Sent By Regd Speed Post When Notices Of Hearing Of Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 2(47)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एक-सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH

Balasaheb Popatrao Phadol, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) Nashik, Nashik

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

ITA 891/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Balasaheb Popatrao Phadol, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Nashik. Vaishnav Niwas, Phadol Mala, At Post Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Apipp8834L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. P. Dhaware (Virtual) Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “1. The Development Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2012-13 & Supplementary Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2013-14. No Sale Of Flats In The Year Of Assessment Order. Only Development Agreement Was Not Transfer U/S 2(47). Commencement Certificate Was Received In The Assessment Year 2013-2014.”

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Dhaware (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)

developer but not given any possession in land as contemplated under section 53A of T.P. Act, 1882, there was no transfer as per section 2(47)(v) giving rise to any capital gain in hands of assessee and, thus, impugned reopening notice was not justified. Accordingly, in the light ... developer but not given any possession in land as contemplated under section 53A of T.P. Act, 1882, there was no transfer as per section 2(47)(v) giving rise to any capital gain in hands of assessee. 10. The above judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Firdos Shahnawazuddin Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 823/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 2(47)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

transfer was done on 25 May 2016; 3. Erred in disregarding the fact that 'Transfer of a capital asset has been defined under Section 2(47) of the Act to inter-alia include allowing of a possession of an immovable property in part performance of a contract; 4. Erred

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6081/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Siel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6301/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Siel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6300/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Jasmine Bhaskar Shah, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 997/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar C Leuva CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 2(47)Section 263Section 54F

Section 263, set aside the assessment order on the grounds of the verification of the claim of indexation as per the provisions of Section 2(47) of the Act. Aggrieved by the revisional order passed by the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed the present appeal before ... such shares from 12.02.2016 considering the owner of said shares and worked out long term capital gain which is in contravention of section 2(47) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Therefore, it appears that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the income

Anand Kedarnath Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2474/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50CSection 53A

year 2018. As the consideration amount of the property, has already been received on 04.06.2002 and therefore as per provisions of section 2(47) of the Act r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer of the impugned property took place in the year 2002 and therefore

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik vs. Rajendra Rasiklal Shah, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1015/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 53Section 54

Instead of assigning the right to third party/parties, the assessee relinquished those rights. We have already seen that the definition of transfer in Section 2(47) is wide enough to include relinquishment of an assel." 6.6 The contention of the appellant that, the decision of Honorable Supreme Court ... immovable property shall take place in terms of various provisions of Transfer of Property Act which needs to be read with provisions of section 2(47) of Income-lax Act, 1961 for the purpose of computing tax liability arising on account of sale /purchase of immovable properties under Income

Sai Keerti Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 299/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी. सं / Ita Nos.296, 297, 298, 299, 300 & 301 /Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Section 132Section 153A

2/1/2006 was registered on 20/11/2013. 14. According to the learned Assessing Officer the transaction of relinquishment falls in the definition of transfer under section 2(47) and, therefore, a sum of Rs.200,25,50,000/- being the stamp duty value of the relinquishment deed shall be brought ... point of time cannot override a valid and legal earlier transaction under the relinquishment deed; that relinquishment is a form of transfer under section 2(47) of the Act; and that the learned Assessing Officer was well within his jurisdiction to bring the stamp duty value of the property

Haripriya Kotapati, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 105/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram & OrsFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 270ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(32)(vii)

proved beyond doubt that, (i) The assessee's transaction with Mr. Madala Sai Kumar (the seller) is a separate transaction as mentioned in section 2(47) of the Act. (ii) the assessee has paid Rs.98,93,750/-, through her grandfather Shri Thummalla Ramkrishna Prasad for the purchase of the property

Late S. Yogarathinam, Rep. by L/H Y. Shanmuga Durai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 122Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 47

Section 45 of the Act and further ought to have appreciated that the in absence of "transfer" within the ambit of provisions in Section 2(47) of the Act between the two individuals within the family, there could not be a scope for invoking the provisions relating to computation ... stating that the settlement deed made out by his brother, Shri Rajaratnam in favour of the appellant falls under "Transfer" as per section 2(47) of the Act. Thus, imposed STCG and LTCG on the difference between the Guideline value and value shown in the books. In the instant