An asset transferred via a slump sale cannot be isolated and taxed

An asset transferred via a slump sale cannot be isolated and taxed again upon registration.

Issue

Whether the revenue department can separately tax the subsequent registration of a conveyance deed for an immovable property under Section 50C in a later assessment year, when that specific asset was already transferred and taxed as part of a comprehensive business undertaking slump sale under Section 50B in a prior year.

Facts

The Slump Sale: The assessee-firm transferred its entire business undertaking as a going concern to a new partnership firm via a slump sale.
Prior Year Taxation: The slump sale consideration was received in 2012, and the resulting capital gains were fully declared and taxed under Section 50B in the return filed for Assessment Year 2013-14.
Asset Inclusion: A parcel of land located in Bhiwandi was included as part of this complete undertaking transfer and was valued at ₹12.26 lakhs within the slump sale mechanics.
Subsequent Registration: A formal conveyance deed specifically for the Bhiwandi land was registered later on October 20, 2015 (falling under Assessment Year 2016-17), adopting the then-prevailing circle stamp value of approximately ₹58.20 lakhs.
The Revenue’s Action: The revenue department attempted to treat the 2015 registration as an independent transfer of immovable property to levy separate capital gains tax for Assessment Year 2016-17.

Decision

Double Taxation Prohibited: Once an entire business undertaking—including the subject land—is legally transferred through a slump sale and taxed under Section 50B, the revenue department cannot pick out a single embedded asset to tax the exact same transfer a second time.
No Tax Liability in Later Year: Consequently, no separate capital gains tax is chargeable to the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 regarding the late registration of the Bhiwandi property’s conveyance deed. (In favour of assessee)

Key Takeaways

Undertaking Treated as a Monolith: Under Section 50B, a slump sale treats the entire business undertaking as a single, indivisible asset. The identity of individual assets and liabilities is legally merged into the whole for capital gains computation.
Registration Delays Do Not Create Fresh Transfers: The execution or registration of a formal title deed for an immovable asset at a later date is merely a legal formality to perfect the title of an asset already sold; it does not constitute a fresh, independent taxable event if the asset was legally moved under a prior slump sale.
Prevention of Double Taxation: The tax department cannot choose different sections of the Income-tax Act (such as swapping Section 50B with Section 50C) to target the same item of property, as a single economic transaction cannot be taxed twice.

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘C’

Crescent Steels

Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department

ANIKESH BANERJEE, Judicial Member
and MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, Accountant Member

IT Appeal No.9152 (Mum) of 2025
[Assessment year 2016-17]

JUNE 10, 2026

Paras Savla for the Appellant. V.S. Mahajan, Sr. DR for the Respondent.

ORDER

Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member.- The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 17.10.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order11.03.2024.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:

“1. General

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC]has erred in partly allowing the appeal.

2. Natural justice violated

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC failed to grant sufficient opportunity to present the case and thus principles of natural justice are grossly violated.

3. Long term capital gain of Rs.47,67,310/-

(a)

The NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.47,67,310/- as long term capital gain arising out of the sale of immovable property situated at Bhiwandi, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

(b)

The NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that the gains arising out of said transfer of immovable property situated at Bhiwandi, was forming part of slump sale and already offered to tax in AY 2013-14.

(c)

Without prejudice to above, the NFAC should have considered the stamp duty value as applicable in AY 2013-14 instead of the valuation as on the date of registration.

4. Interest u/ss 234A, 234B and 234C

On merits, the Appellant denies its liability for the levy of interest u/ss. 234A, 234B and 234C, hence the interest levied may be directed to be deleted.

5. Additional ground – Reopening is bad in law

(a)

The NFAC failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment is ex-facie illegal and hence the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.

(b)

The NFAC failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings are initiated the Jurisdictional Assessing officer and not by National Faceless Assessment Centre and thus is in violation of section 151A read with notification dated 29 March 2022, issued by CBDT.

(c)

Without prejudice to above, the Appellant submits that the Assessing officer has not provided a copy of the approval granted by the specified authority u/s 151 of the Act. The Appellant apprehends that same is in violation of sections 148, 148A and 151 of the Act and hence the reopening proceedings are bad in law, and the reassessment order is liable to be quashed.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm, had not filed the return u/sec. 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO fond that during the impugned year the assessee sold the immovable property amounting to Rs.58,20,500/-. The Ld. AO proceeded for reassessment u/sec. 147 and accordingly, the notice u/sec. 148 was issued. In response to the notice u/sec. 148 the assessee filed the return of income. On verification of the documents the Ld. AO found that the assessee transferred their business undertaking as a going concern on 14.07.2012 in slump sale to a new firm named M/s. Crescent Steels (hereinafter referred to as ‘Crescent New’) bearing PAN No.AAHFC9988J total consideration amounting to Rs.4.15 crore. But due to unavoidable technical reason the agreement of slump sale was not accepted by Joint Sub-Registrar of Bhiwandi. On 20.10.2015 the assessee made the sale of non-agricultural land at Bhiwandi by taking market value prevailing at that time as Rs.58,20,500/- against the stamp duty value of this land which was the part of the slump sale made with new Crescent and the sale value of the land at Bhiwandi is mentioned amount to Rs. 12,26,050/-out of total consideration of slump sale amount to Rs.4,15,00,000/- which has been received in respect of slump sale agreement on 14.07.2012 and also taken to account while filing of income tax return for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee contended that the non-agricultural land at Bhiwandi was also the part of the slum sale by assessee to buyer New Crescent which was already offered to tax in A.Y. 2013-14. For avoidance of double taxation the assessee had not offered the capital gain tax in impugned assessment year. But the Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s plea and calculated long term capital gain amount to Rs.58,20,500/- which was added back with the total income of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the impugned assessment order but the direction was made for allowing the benefit of cost of acquisition during computing of the capital gain tax. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4. The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 366 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee had sold the non-agricultural land at Bhiwandi to the New Crescent as a going concern by way of slump sale. On the year A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee offered the tax as long term capital gain and filed the return accordingly. The copy of the computation is annexed in APB page 44 to 45. In support of the argument the Ld. AR filed a written note which is reproduced as below:

“B. Brief Facts:

3. The Appellant i.e. M/s. Crescent Steel (Old) bearing PAN No. AAAFC2964P having five partners namely;

PravinBhavanjiKarani,

Arvind PremjiKarani,

Ashok P. Shah HUF,

Vallabh P. Shah HUF, and

Jayshree S. Gosar

decided to sale their business undertaking as a going concern by way of Slump Sale. After discussion on this issue, Arvind Premji Karani one of the partner of the Appellant i.e. M/s M/s. Crescent Steel (Old) agreed to purchase the business undertaking as a going concern by way of Slump Sale in the same Firm Name i.e. M/s. Crescent Steel (New) bearing PAN No. AAHFC9988J. The new firm was formed on 18 April 2012, having three partners namely

Arvind PremjiKarani,

Bharti Arvind Karani and

Mayank Arvind Karani.

The copy of Partnership Deed of M/s Crescent Steels (New) is attached herewith for your ready reference.

Kindly refer Factual Paper book

New Partnership Agreement dated 18 April 2012 pg. 150 to 156

4. On the basis of above, M/s. Crescent Steel (Old) bearing PAN No. AAAFC2964P entered into slump sale agreement on 14 July 2012 for transfer its business undertaking as a going concern for total consideration of Rs. 4,15,00,000/-, which included LAND AT BHIWANDI bearing Survey No. 16, Hissa No. 2/B (Survey No.16 Hissa No. 2/2) admeasuring about 0-47-3 (H-R-P) + Potkharaba 0-04-0 (H-R-P), totally admeasuring about 0-51-3 (H-R-P), situate, lying and being at Village Vadunavghar, Taluka Bhiwandi, within the limits of Gram panchayat Vadunavghar, Talathi Saja Karivali to M/s. Crescent Steel (New) bearing PAN No. AAHFC9988J. This agreement clearly mentioned LAND AT BHIWANDI which was included in List of Assets as per Annexure 1 held by the appellant and transferred by way of slump sale.

Kindly refer Factual Paper book

Slump Sale agreement dated 14 July 2012 – pg. 10-21

Purchase deed dated 25 November 2008 – pg. 98-115

5. Since transfer of assets including Land at Bhiwandi took place on 14 July 2012 i.e. Assessment Year 2013-2014 and also payment arising from slump sale was received by the Appellant during the Assessment Year 2013-2014, the Appellant calculated capital gain arising out of the transfer and paid capital gain tax thereon in Assessment Year 2013-2014 itself.

Kindly refer Factual Paper book

Ledger of Long term capital gain – pg. 42

Ledger of Slump Sale consideration amount received – pg. 43

Computation of total income for AY 2013-14 – pg. 44-45

Income tax return for AY 2013-14 – pg.46-71

Audited P & L account and balance sheet for AY 2013-14 – pg. 72-73.

6. The New partnership firm i.e. M/s. Crescent Steel (New) bearing PAN No. AAHFC9988J had reflected the asset at the revalued number in its balance sheet also.

Kindly refer Factual Paper book

Income tax return for AY 2013-14 of NEW Crescent Steels – pg.157-182

Audited P & L account and balance sheet for AY 2013-14 of New Crescent Steels – pg. 183-219

7. Since there was no business left in the Appellant i.e. old firm Crescent Steels, the bank accounts were also closed.

Kindly refer Factual Paper book

DCB bank account-closure of account – pg. 116-125

Union Bank of India – closure of account – pg. 126

HDFC bank-closure of account – pg. 127-140

8. The Appellant had transferred its business undertaking by way of slump sale as a going concern on 14 July 2012 i.e. during the Assessment year 2013-14. Due to no mandatory requirements of registration of slump sale agreement, the said agreement of slump sale including LAND AT BHIWANDI was not registered. Subsequently, at the request of the Purchasers, Appellant made sale deed of LAND AT BHIWANDI on 20 October 2015 taking market value prevailing at that time as Rs. 58,20,500/- for stamp duty purposes. This sale deed registered on 20 October 2015 was purely for transferring the above LAND AT BHIWANDI, made in the name of the partners of new Crescent Steel.

Kindly refer Factual Paper book

Sale deed dated 20 October 2015 – pg. 22-41

9. Return of income for AY 2013-14 has been accepted including that Slump Sale transactions as no scrutiny assessment has been carried out for that year.

10. However, reassessment proceedings were initiated for AY 2016-2017 on the basis of the information received that Appellant had sold immovable property situated at Bhiwandi for a consideration of Rs. 58,20,500/- and had not offered the same to tax.

11. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Appellant had replied to the notices and filed the details as asked for. The Appellant had also filed Affidavit from partners of the Appellant i.e. M/s. Crescent Steel (Old) bearing PAN No. AAAFC2964P and also Affidavit from partners of M/s. Crescent Steel (New) bearing PAN No. AAHFC9988), confirming the above transactions.

Kindly refer Factual Paper book

Affidavit filed by Pravin Bhavanji Karani, Partner of Old Crescent Steels – pg.232-236

Affidavit filed by Arvind Premji Karani, Bharati Arvind Karani and Mayank Arvind Karani, Partners of New Crescent Steels – pg.237-240

12. Considering the allegation by the Assessing officer that the subsequent sale agreement dated 20 October 2015 was made to the partners of the new firm and not the new firm per se, the partners registered a rectification deed dated 21 February 2024 mentioning that the transfer was to the new firm itself.

Kindly refer Factual Paper book

Rectification deed dt. 21 February 2024 – pg.243-273

13. However, the Assessing Officer, treated the entire amount of Rs.58,20,500/- as long-term capital gain for AY 2016-17, on surmises and conjectures.

14. On Appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of long term capital gain. The Ld. CIT(A), however, granted deduction of cost on the basis of purchase deed dated 25 November 2008.

15. During the course of the hearing, your Honours had sought certain details which are attached with additional compilation in continuation of the paper book.

Kindly refer Factual Paper book

Form 3CB for AY 2013-14 for Crescent Steels (OLD) – pg. 367

Form 3CD for AY 2013-14 for Crescent Steels (OLD) – pg. 368-373

Intimation u/s 143(1)(a) for AY 2013-14 for Crescent Steels (OLD) – pg. 374-382

C. Propositions:

Ground No. 3-CIT(A) erred in confirming Long term capital gain of Rs.47,67,310/-in AY 20162017 arising out of sale of immovable property situated at Bhiwandi

Proposition 1: The transfer of the impugned asset was completed in FY 2012-13 and cannot be taxed again in AY 2016-17

16. It is clearly borne out from record, that the Appellant transferred its business undertaking as a going concern on 14 July 2012 for a consideration of Rs. 4,15,00,000/, which included the impugned land at Bhiwandi. Possession of the said land was also handed over on the same date. The subsequent registered document dated 20 October 2015 was executed only to complete procedural requirements due to non-registration of the earlier agreement.

17. It can be seen from the balance sheet that there are no assets left with the Appellant post slump sale. The Land in Bhiwandi is also reflected in the purchasers (i.e. M/s. Crescent Steel (New) bearing PAN No. AAHFC9988J) Balance sheet for AY 2013-14. The conclusion drawn by the lower authorities proceeds on a complete misdirection in law. The transfer of the asset is a matter of substance and not of form. Once the undertaking, along with the impugned land, stood transferred in AY 2013-14 and possession was handed over, the taxable event stood concluded in that year. The subsequent execution of a registered document does not give rise to a fresh transfer; it merely perfects the documentation of an already completed transaction. To treat such subsequent documentation as a separate taxable event would lead to taxation of the same transfer twice, which is impermissible.

18. The approach adopted by the lower authorities effectively taxes the same transaction in two different years, first in substance and then again in form, which is contrary to the scheme of the Act.

19. The Department cannot take conflicting stands, but taxing the gains arising out of the slump sale transfer in AY 2013-14 and thereafter again taxing in AY 2016-17.”

5. The Ld. AR contended that the said property duly covered in the slump sale and accordingly transfer to the New Crescent the copy of the slump sale agreement dated 14.07.2012 is annexed in APB pages 10 to 21. The relevant transfer is duly noted in the said agreement which is reproduced as below:

“Where as The Seller firm, subject to the terms and conditions laid down in this document, has agreed to transfer its business undertaking, as a “goji including the Trade Name and all the assets and liabilities including immovable properties except Bima Premises, situated at Plot No. 119. Office No. 3036 & 3037, Iron & Steel Market, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai 410218, to the Purchaser firm, by way of a slump sale, for a consideration of Rupees Four Crores and Fifteen Lacs only. (Schedule 1- List of Assets held by the seller and transferred by way of a slump sale.)”

6. The Ld. DR argued that a transfer of immovable property can be said to have been legally effected only upon execution and registration of a valid sale deed. According to the Ld. DR, in the absence of registration, no party can claim that the immovable property has been transferred in its favour. In support of this contention, the Ld. DR respectfully relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand 190 SCL 162 (SC), decided on 01.09.2025. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court contained in paragraph 14 of the judgment are reproduced below:

“14. Perusal of above said provisions lays down a specific mode of execution of sale deed with respect to immovable property for concluding the sale of a property. In sale for an immovable property the value of which exceeds Rs. 100/-, the three requirements of law are that the transfer of property of sale must take place through a validly executed sale deed, i.e., it must be in writing, properly attested and registered. Unless the sale deed is in writing, attested and registered, the transaction cannot be construed as sale, or in other words, the property will not be transferred.”

7. The Ld. DR argued that in impugned assessment year the assessee is liable to pay capital gain tax as the deed of sales is executed in this year. He stands in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. The Ld. DR invited our attention in impugned appellate order para no.5 which is reproduced as below:

“5 . Discussion and Decision: I carefully considered the submission of the appellant with reference to the impugned assessment order. Also perused and considered the details and documents uploaded by the appellant on ITBA portal during the appellant proceedings. Considered the case laws referred by the appellant and the AO.

5.1.1. The first four grounds challenge the addition of Rs. 58,20,500/- as long-term capital gain on the sale of land at Bhiwandi in the year under appeal. The appellant contends that this land formed part of its business undertaking transferred by way of slump sale on 14.07.2012 to “New” M/s Crescent Steels for a total consideration of Rs. 4.15 crore, and that the resultant capital gain was offered to tax in A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer held that the slump sale agreement was unregistered, executed merely on Rs. 100/- stamp paper, and did not clearly describe the property; that the registered sale deed dated 20.10.2015 reflected the names of three Individual buyers-Arvind Premji Karani, Bharti Arvind Karani and Mayank Arvind Karani and not “New” M/s Crescent Steels; and that the rectification deed dated 21.02.2024 was a post-facto document to avoid legitimate tax. On these facts, the AO taxed the entire Rs. 58,20,500/- under the head “long-term capital gain” in A.Y. 2016-17.

5.1.2. On a thorough examination of the evidence, I find that the slump sale agreement dated 14.07.2012 is admittedly unregistered. It is well settled that, though registration may not be mandatory to create contractual obligations between parties, an unregistered deed has limited evidentiary value for purposes of transfer of immovable property. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) has held that unless a contract falls within section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and is registered, it cannot be treated as “transfer” under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act. Thus, in the present case, mere handing over of possession under an unregistered agreement would not trigger transfer for capital-gains purposes. Even assuming that possession was given in 2012, the registered sale deed dated 20.10.2015 shows the purchasers as three individuals and not “New” M/s Crescent Steels. In income-tax law, a partnership firm and its partners are distinct entities, each having a separate. PAN. The Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 694 has held that assets purchased in partners’ names cannot automatically be treated as assets of the firm unless duly transferred. In the instant case, there is no contemporaneous evidence that the impugned land was accounted for in the books of the “New” firm in 2012-13, nor that the partners acted only as nominees. The rectification deed of 2024, being a self-serving document executed after the assessment proceedings had commenced. cannot retrospectively change the the character of of the the 2015 registered deed.

5.1.3. Section 2(47) includes in “transfer” any transaction allowing possession to be taken in part-performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. However, after the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, an agreement not registered cannot constitute part-performance under section 53A. This was reiterated in Balbir Singh Maini (supra). Therefore, the appellant’s reliance on mere possession in 2012 cannot override the registered deed of 2015. In contrast, the AO’s action of taxing the gain in A.Y. 2016-17 is in consonance with the settled law that transfer of immovable property is effected on execution or registration of conveyance unless a duly registered agreement coupled with possession exists. The appellant has cited CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)and CIT v. Mormasji Mancharji Vaid (2001) 250 ITR 542 (Guj) (FB). In Podar Cement, the Supreme Court held that ownership for purposes of section 22 may arise even without a registered conveyance. That decision dealt with deemed ownership for income-from-house-property and is not directly applicable to capital-gains timing. Likewise, Mormasji Mancharji Vaid turned on its own facts. On the other hand, the binding decision of the Supreme Court in Balbir Singh Maini squarely governs; it has clarified that unregistered agreements cannot trigger transfer under section 2(47)(v).

5.1.4. The appellant’s plea of double taxation also cannot be accepted. Double taxation presupposes that the same income is taxed twice in the same assessment year or in two different years without authority of law. Here, there is no evidence that the specific gain on the Bhiwandi land was assessed in A.Y. 2013-14. The onus to prove such earlier taxation lies on the appellant. Apart from a general working of capital gains on Rs. 4.15 crore, no assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14 evidencing inclusion of this specific land or its cost was furnished during appeal. In Kesoram Industries v. CWT (1966) 59 ITR 767 (SC), it was held that the burden to establish double taxation is on the assessee. That burden is not discharged here. In light of the above, I hold that the Assessing Officer was justified in bringing to tax Rs. 58,20,500/- as long-term capital gain in A.Y. 2016-17 on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 20.10.2015. The unregistered slump sale agreement of 2012 and the belated rectification deed of 2024 do not displace the legal effect of the 2015 registered conveyance. Accordingly, the first four grounds of the appeal fail and are dismissed.”

8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of five partners. During the relevant period, the partners decided to transfer the entire business undertaking as a going concern by way of a slump sale for a total consideration of Rs.4.15 crore to “New Crescent”, a partnership firm consisting of three partners, who were also partners in the assessee firm. The assessee duly executed a slump sale agreement dated 14.07.2012. On perusal of the said agreement, we find that the land situated at Bhiwandi was specifically included in the list of assets annexed thereto, as evidenced from APB Page No. 21.Due to certain technical reasons, the assessee could not execute and register the conveyance deed in A.Y. 2013-14. However, the assessee disclosed the slump sale transaction in its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14, computed the resultant long-term capital gain, and duly paid the taxes thereon. Subsequently, the property was transferred through a registered conveyance deed on 20.10.2015, falling in the impugned assessment year. The stamp duty valuation of the property at Rs.58,20,500/-, whereas the value assigned to the said land in the slump sale agreement was only Rs.12,26,050/-.

The Ld. AO computed the long-term capital gain by adopting the entire sale consideration as stamp duty value of Rs.58,20,500/- and confirmed the addition without allowing any deduction towards the cost of acquisition. The Ld. DR contended that a transfer of immovable property can be legally recognized only upon the execution and registration of a valid conveyance deed. According to the Ld. DR, although the slump sale agreement recorded the intention to transfer the property to “New Crescent,” the actual transfer of ownership could take effect only upon the registration of the conveyance deed. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand (supra), wherein it was held that ownership in an immovable property passes only upon the execution and registration of a valid conveyance deed. Accordingly, the Ld. DR submitted that the transfer of the immovable property was required to be recognized in the impugned assessment year, being the year in which the conveyance deed was duly registered.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the reliance placed by the Ld. DR on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is factually distinguishable from the present case. The decision in Ramesh Chand (supra) dealt with an individual transfer of immovable property and not with a slump sale transaction governed by Section 50B of the Act. In the present case, the assessee transferred an entire business undertaking as a going concern under a slump sale agreement dated 14.07.2012 for a lump-sum consideration of Rs.4.15 crore. The undertaking comprised both movable and immovable assets, including the Bhiwandi property. The resultant capital gain was computed and offered to tax under Section 50B of the Act in Assessment Year 2013-14, and the said computation was accepted by the revenue. Significantly, neither the Ld. AO nor any other revenue authority has disputed or rejected the slump sale transaction as a transfer of a going concern.

On a prima facie appreciation of the facts, we find that the Bhiwandi property formed an integral part of the undertaking transferred under the slump sale agreement dated 14.07.2012. Consequently, the gain arising from the transfer of the said property stood subsumed in the computation made under Section 50B and offered to tax in A.Y. 2013-14. Merely because a conveyance deed was subsequently registered in A.Y.2016-17 to perfect and formalize the title in favour of the purchaser, the same cannot give rise to a fresh or separate charge of capital gains tax in the impugned assessment year. Once the entire undertaking, including the subject land, was transferred under a slump sale and the resultant gains were duly subjected to tax under Section 50B in A.Y. 2013-14, the revenue cannot seek to tax the very same transfer again by isolating one immovable asset forming part of the undertaking. Such an approach would amount to taxing the same transaction twice, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold that no separate capital gain is chargeable to tax in the impugned assessment year in respect of the registration of the conveyance deed relating to the Bhiwandi property. The addition made by the Ld. AO is therefore directed to be deleted. Consequently, Ground Nos. 3(a) to 3(c) raised by the assessee are allowed.

9. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 being general in nature and Ground No. 4 being consequential do not call for separate adjudication. Ground No. 5 is merely academic so no adjudication is required.

10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.9152/Mum/2025 is allowed.