Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The HC held that handing over possession of land to a developer for construction purposes under a development agreement, without actual transfer of ownership or payment of consideration, does not constitute a 'transfer' u/s 2(47) of the Income Tax Act to attract capital gains tax. The performance guarantee amount is refundable and not consideration. The HC distinguished the cases of Potla Nageswara Rao and Arvind S Phake, where transfer was complete with possession handover and consideration payment. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee handed over full possession for 60% constructed area and was liable for capital gains during the relevant year was held perverse.
The HC held that handing over possession of land to a developer for construction purposes under a development agreement, without actual transfer of ownership or payment of consideration, does not constitute a 'transfer' u/s 2(47) of the Income Tax Act to attract capital gains tax. The performance guarantee amount is refundable and not consideration. The HC distinguished the cases of Potla Nageswara Rao and Arvind S Phake, where transfer was complete with possession handover and consideration payment. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee handed over full possession for 60% constructed area and was liable for capital gains during the relevant year was held perverse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.