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)

S. Narendrakumar & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 22(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 7080/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. S. Narendrakumar & Co., Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Krushal Commercial Income Tax, Complex, Circle 22(2), Vs. G.M. Road, Vashi Railway Station Chembur (W), Complex, Tower No.6, 4Th Floor, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 089 Pan: Aaafs 1245B Navi Mumbai – 400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Neil Philip, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Is Relating To The Taxability Of The Income Gained By The Assessee From Transfer Of The Assessee‟S Right In „5 Office Premises‟ As To Whether The Same Are To Be Assessed Under The Head „Long Term Capital Gains‟ Or As „Income From Other Sources‟. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Had Shown Long Term Capital Gains Of 2 M/S. S. Narendrakumar & Co.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip, D.R