Joint development agreement without possession transfer does not trigger deemed transfer or capital gains.

A joint development agreement did not constitute a transfer of immovable property under section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A because the developer was only allowed to enter the land for development, while the owner retained possession and custody of the title deeds. The agreement itself stated that it did not amount to parting with possession or delivery of possession in part performance. On these facts, there was no handing over of possession in the sense required by section 53A, no completed part performance, and no deemed transfer giving rise to capital gains in the year under appeal. The addition was deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the joint development agreement amounted to a transfer of immovable property under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 so as to attract capital gains for the year under appeal.

Analysis: The agreement and its clauses showed that the developer was only permitted to enter the land for development purposes, while the owner retained possession and custody of the title deeds. The agreement expressly stated that nothing in it would amount to parting with possession or delivery of possession in part performance. On the facts, there was no handing over of possession in the sense required by section 53A, no completed part performance, and no transfer of rights sufficient to constitute a deemed transfer under section 2(47)(v). The reasoning was consistent with the principle that a mere development licence or permission to develop does not by itself amount to possession for the purposes of deemed transfer.

Conclusion: The JDA did not result in a transfer under section 2(47)(v) and no capital gains arose in the year under appeal; the addition was rightly deleted.

---