Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(47) is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 of the 851 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

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).

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.

CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd.
335 ITR 29 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Customer acquisition costs and advertisement expenditures are treated as revenue expenditures, not deferred expenditures, as there is no general concept of deferred expenditure for such items under Income Tax Law.

Page 32 of 66 CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai
56 ITR 42 · 1965 · Supreme Court
69
citing judgments

Income accrues or arises to an assessee when the right to receive it vests with the assessee, not necessarily upon actual receipt.

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana
340 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property by way of sale is legally valid only through a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance. Unregistered instruments like agreements to sell, General Power of Attorney, or wills do not transfer title or create an interest in the property.

CIT v. Grace Collis
248 ITR 323 · 2001 · Supreme Court
58
citing judgments

The term 'transfer' under Section 2(47) includes the relinquishment of a right to property that creates an interest in the property. However, the extinguishment of rights in shares, when occurring without a formal conveyance, does not attract capital gains.

Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
53 ITR 261 · 1964 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

A receipt for loss of capital is a capital receipt, while a receipt as profit from a trading transaction constitutes taxable income. This case provides a foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue receipts.

Judgments on Section 2(47)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ncc3(1) Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Shri Venkatesh Meghraj Kathare, Alwarpet

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:974/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Shri Venkatesh Meghraj Kathare, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.205, Old No.128, Non-Corporate Circle 3(1), St. Mary Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aadpk 5251E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061041943(1) Dated 16.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Treating The Sale Of Land At Tiruvottiyur High Road As Long Term Capital Gain As Against Assessed By Ao As Short Term Capital Gain. For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- 1) The Cit(A) Has Erred On The Facts Of The Case In Treating The Capital Gains On Sale Of Land At Tiruvottiyur High Road As Long Term Capital Gain Instead Of Short Term Capital Gain Without Appreciating That :

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)Section 46(2)

Dhirendra Nath Das, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Durgapur

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

ITA 491/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.491/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Nath Das.…....………………………… ........................……Appellant C/O Jain Vinod & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kol-700017. [Pan: Adgpd9102P] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Durgapur.................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jain, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2024 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. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Fact In Dismissing The Appeal When He Ought To Consider That Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Has Wrongly Assumed The Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Hence The Assessment Order Passed There On Is Null & Void Ab-Initio. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law As Well As On Fact To Upheld The Assessment Order Of The Jao Treating Agreement Of Development As

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250