https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67637 The insertion of clause (v) in section 2(47) was treated as prospective only, so an agreement to sell with delivery of possession in 1976 could not be brought within the amended definition of transfer for capital gains purposes. The transaction had to be examined under the law then in force, and on those facts no taxable transfer within section 2(47) was established for the year under consideration. As a result, the capital gains addition was not sustainable and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:52:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67637 The insertion of clause (v) in section 2(47) was treated as prospective only, so an agreement to sell with delivery of possession in 1976 could not be brought within the amended definition of transfer for capital gains purposes. The transaction had to be examined under the law then in force, and on those facts no taxable transfer within section 2(47) was established for the year under consideration. As a result, the capital gains addition was not sustainable and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67637