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)

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

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)