Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an unregistered joint development agreement could be treated as a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 so as to attract capital gains liability.
Analysis: Section 2(47)(v) brings within the scope of "transfer" a transaction where possession of immovable property is allowed to be taken or retained in part-performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. After the 2001 amendments to the Registration Act, 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act, a contract intended to operate under Section 53A must be registered, and an unregistered agreement has no efficacy in law for that purpose. The agreement in question was admittedly unregistered, and the clauses relating to possession did not alter the legal position. The principle applied by the Supreme Court in Balbir Singh Maini governed the controversy.
Conclusion: The unregistered agreement could not be treated as a transfer under Section 2(47)(v), and the capital gains addition could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: For Section 2(47)(v) to apply, the underlying contract must be legally enforceable under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which requires registration where mandated by the Registration Act, 1908.