Which cases are most cited on Section 53A?

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) — 228 citing judgments; Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (239 ITR 775) — 215 citing judgments; CIT v. R.L. Sood (245 ITR 727) — 42 citing judgments; 82 (Gujarat) (HC). 7. Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (227 Taxmann 374) — 39 citing judgments; Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT (224 ITR 106) — 37 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 53A?

BharatTax indexes 377 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 53A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 53A of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 53A of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) is the decision most relied on for Section 53A, cited in 228 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.

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

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

citing judgments

Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT

224 ITR 106 · 1997 · High Court

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

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

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

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

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

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 53A

Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully allowed

ITA 887/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsmt. Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Flat No. 204, Grant Canyon, Opp. Hdfc Bank, Pali Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan: Acxpc0971B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-23(1)(5), Room No. 114, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 2(47)Section 54

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 32/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(47)(v)Section 49Section 53ASection 54F

The ITO, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar vs. Shri Maldebhai Naranbhai Varotaria, Jamnagar

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

ITA 169/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 169/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 Income-Tax Officer, Shri Maldebhai Naranbhai Varotaria, Ward-1(3), Vs. Madhav Corporation, Jamnagar 3Rd Floor, Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Corner, Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R

Section 54BSection 54B(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Surekha Sudhakar Jadhavar, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 151/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.151/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Accit, Circle-6, Surekha Sudhakar Jadhavar, Pune. Vs. 64, Indraprastha, Wadgaon Bk, Kranti Nagar, Pune – 411041. Pan: Afspj 9291 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P Kumar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 05.05.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ito, Wd-6(2), Pune/360/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)

Mr. Mahesh D. Saini, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-35(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1929/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1929/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Mr. Mahesh D. Saini बिधम/ Ito, Ward-35(2)(3) 203, Lukhi Niwas Kailash Room No. 745, 7Th Floor, Vs. Puri, Upper Govind Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Plot No. 135, Malad (E), C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai-400097. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1048M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh B. Shah Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai Dated 28.02.2020 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,05,37,002/- As Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Treating The Purported Capital Asset As Transfer In View Of The Provisions Of Section 2(47) (V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) R.W. Section 53A Of The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (4 Of 1882) (Hereinafter In Short As “Topa”). 3. Brief Facts Of The Case As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A) Is That The Ao Noticed That During The Year, The Assessee Jointly With His Two (2) Brothers, Viz Shri Formal Dedrajmali Alias Sainik/Siani & Shri Kailash Dedraj Mali Alias Sainik/Saini, Entered Into Sale Cum

For Appellant: Shri Haresh B. ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr

Section 2(47)Section 50CSection 53A

Shri. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 383/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravi shankar

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation )-2(I/C), Hyderabad vs. Madhu Kumar Patel, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal by the Revenue as well as the C

ITA 343/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Madhu Kumar Patel (International Taxation-2), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 343/Hyd/2021) Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. Dy.Cit (International Hyderabad Taxation2), Pan:Bvdpp3797G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.03.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal As Well As The C.O Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided In This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 148Section 2(47)

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat vs. Balvantbhai Dullabhbhai Patel, Surat

In the result the appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 130/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T.,Circle-1(3), Balvantbhai Dullabhbhai Patel, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil “Manikunj”, Near Jamna Nagar Vs. Business Centre, Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395007. Surat-395007. Pan No. Agnpp 7871 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 2(47)Section 254(1)Section 53ASection 54

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4876/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR