Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(47)(v) is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 of the 331 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(47)(v)

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.

7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR
56 ITR 67 · 1965 · Supreme Court
127
citing judgments

A taxpayer can raise a plea that their income is not taxable, even if they have previously made an agreement regarding the quantification of taxable income. The principle of estoppel does not apply against a settled position in law.

Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT
310 ITR 310 · 2009 · High Court
116
citing judgments

Tax authorities are obligated to act in accordance with the law and ensure only legitimate taxes are collected, assisting assessees who have been over-assessed due to mistake or misconception.

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.

77 ITR 237 (Ker), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey
136 ITR 355 · 1982 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Tax authorities are mandated to correctly determine the legitimate taxable income according to the law, and no tax can be levied or collected unless explicitly permitted by statute, irrespective of the assessee's admissions or acquiescence. The appellate authority should adjudicate additional claims to ensure the correct tax liability is arrived at.

S.R. Kosti v. CIT
77 ITR 237 · 1970 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Income tax authorities are obligated to assist assessees who are over-assessed due to mistake, misconception, or lack of proper instruction, ensuring only legitimate taxes are collected.

Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers
67 SCC 279 · 1987 · Reported
37
citing judgments

A tax cannot be levied if it is not permitted under the Act, even if the doctrine of estoppel might otherwise apply. There can be no estoppel against a statute, and a party is entitled to relief if tax is levied or collected without legal authority.

CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy
65 ITR 607 · 1967 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

An assessment made on an assessee under a different status than what was specified in the notice is illegal and without jurisdiction. The assessee must be put on notice and invited for objections if the Assessing Officer proposes to assess them under a different status.

CIT v. Shivsagar Estate
204 ITR 866 · 1993 · High Court
24
citing judgments

Judicial discipline requires consistency in legal interpretation. Once a view is taken in a particular year, and absent contrary material, the same view should be followed to ensure finality in litigation.

Judgments on Section 2(47)(v)

DCIT -26(1), Mumbai vs. Shreyas Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR)
Section 2(47)(v)

Rajamanickam Meerabai, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 923/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 923/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006 - 07 Smt. Rajamanikam Meerabai, The Income Tax Officer, Door No.29, Old No.T-2-2, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -15(3), Cauveri Salai Chennai. Besant Nagar South, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aaopm 7401M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A ""यथ"क" ओ रसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai In Ita No.180/Cit(A)-15/2016-17 Dated 21.09.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2006-07 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 31.03.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Computing Long Term Capital Gain & Disallowing The Claim Of Exemption U/S.54 Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Which Are Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54