An unregistered joint development arrangement did not constitute...

An unregistered joint development arrangement did not constitute a transfer under section 2(47)(v) because it had no legal efficacy for section 53-A, following Balbir Singh Maini. Section 2(47)(vi) also did not apply, as the transaction had not enabled enjoyment of the property as a purported owner and there was no movement of consideration or transfer, symbolically or constructively, before the relevant year-end. Applying B.C. Srinivasa Setty, the Court held that the charging and computation provisions operate as an integrated code, and where no real profit or gain had arisen, sections 45 and 48 could not be invoked. No taxable transfer or accrued capital gain arose for the year.