Just a moment...
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 the collaboration arrangement and connected agreements resulted in a transfer of a capital asset or extinguishment of rights in the property within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to attract capital gains tax.
Analysis: The assessees held leasehold rights in the land and ownership rights in the existing structure. The agreements with the builder did not execute a registered conveyance of the immovable property, and the property itself was not transferred. The arrangement was treated as a licence to enter upon the land and raise a building, not as a sale or lease. The assessees' remaining rights in the property were not completely extinguished, and the builder acquired only a permissive right to construct, while the assessees continued to retain their substantive leasehold interests. Amounts received under the agreements were in the nature of advances or security for a contemplated future transfer of built-up space, which had not yet come into existence.
Conclusion: No transfer of the capital asset had taken place and no capital gains arose in the hands of the assessees.
Ratio Decidendi: A mere collaboration or licence arrangement that permits construction on leased land, without a registered conveyance and without complete extinguishment of the assessee's rights in the property, does not amount to a transfer of a capital asset under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.