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

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

Sri. K. Rajanna, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 928/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.928/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sri K. Rajanna, Hoovadigara Beedhi, Hosuru Bagilu, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Dist. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore Dt.24.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 2.4.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,43,590 From Business & Long Term Capital Gains (‘Ltcg’). The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act'). The Assessing Officer Observed That On Verification Of The Return Of Income, It Was Seen That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.3,38,00,000 From Sale Of 12 Flats Received From The Developer Consequent To A Joint Development Agreement (‘Jda’)

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54