Section 53A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 53A is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 of the 377 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 53A

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.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court
215
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

CIT v. R.L. Sood
245 ITR 727 · 2000 · High Court
42
citing judgments

Exemption under Section 54 for capital gains on a residential property is available even if the sale deed is not registered within the stipulated time, provided a substantial amount of consideration is paid, or the delay in completion/registration is beyond the assessee's control.

82 (Gujarat) (HC). 7. Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT
227 Taxmann 374 · 2014 · Supreme Court
39
citing judgments
Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT
224 ITR 106 · 1997 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee towards payment of installments for acquiring a new residential property can be considered as investment for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 54, even if the sale deed has not been registered. The assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54 can be allowed if the installments paid exceed the amount of capital gain.

Gupta v. ITO
51 Taxmann.com 383 · 2014 · Supreme Court
34
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer is justified in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 if, subsequent to the original assessment, fresh information is received indicating potential tax evasion, such as loan transactions with a finance company known for providing accommodation entries.

CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal)
244 ITR 352 · 2000 · High Court
27
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 54 if substantial steps have been taken towards acquiring a new residential property, even if the sale deed has not yet been executed, provided the intention to purchase and invest is evident.

CIT v. Kuldeep Singh
49 Taxmann.com 167 · 2014 · High Court
24
citing judgments

Section 54 of the Income-tax Act allows deduction for purchase of a residential house even if the transaction involves an agreement with a builder, payment linked to construction stages, and possession is obtained later, as the term 'purchased' has a wider connotation beyond a registered sale deed or immediate possession.

Smt. Shanta Vidya Sagar Annam v. Income Tax Officer
170 Taxmann.com 754 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Capital gains cannot be said to have accrued in the year of execution of a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) if no consideration is received and possession is handed over only for development purposes.

Acumen Fund Advisory Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
50 Taxmann.com 317 · 2014 · Reported
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 53A

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Ambalal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 84/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.84/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Circle-6(2)(1) बिधम/ Mr. Bharat Ambalal Patel R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, C/O Kale Rubber Works Pvt. Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Ltd. Western Express Mumbai-400020. Highway, Vijay Nagar, Goregaon (E) Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp7813K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Sumar Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Hiro Rai (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.10.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.52,32,667/- Made By The Ao U/S 50C Towards Ltcg.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sumar Kumar (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C