Transfer of immovable property under section 2(47)(vi) can arise even where a joint venture project remains incomplete.

An unregistered joint venture arrangement could not support transfer by part performance under section 2(47)(v) after the amendments to the Registration Act and section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, but it still constituted a transaction enabling enjoyment of immovable property under section 2(47)(vi). The developer obtained enforceable rights over most of the land for construction and could deal with the resulting flats, while the retained construction obligation formed part of the consideration. Non-completion of the project did not defeat the transfer; it only affected the discharge or quantification of consideration. The plea that no transfer occurred was rejected, and remaining issues on capital gains computation and section 54-F relief were sent back for fresh examination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the joint venture arrangement dated 04/02/2011 resulted in a transfer of the assessee's rights in immovable property under section 2(47)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the alleged failure or incomplete performance of the project prevented the incidence of capital gains.

Analysis: The arrangement was admittedly unregistered, so transfer by way of part performance under section 2(47)(v) could not be sustained in view of the amendments to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as explained by the Supreme Court. However, the arrangement still amounted to a transaction enabling enjoyment of immovable property within section 2(47)(vi), because the developer obtained rights over the larger portion of the land for construction and could deal with the resulting flats in its own right, while construction on the retained portion represented consideration in kind. Non-completion of the project did not negate the transfer; at most, it affected the discharge or quantum of consideration. The matter also involved the assessee's contention that subsequent events and project completion required reconsideration of the computation of capital gains and deduction under section 54-F.

Conclusion: Section 2(47)(vi) applied on the admitted facts, and the plea that no transfer took place because the project did not materialise was rejected. At the same time, the matter was restored for fresh examination of the assessee's remaining contentions, including quantification of capital gains and related reliefs.

---