https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235297 A joint development agreement did not amount to a transfer of factory land in assessment year 2000-01 because possession was not handed over, construction had not commenced, and the consideration was only a refundable advance contingent on performance. The land was also held to have been converted into stock-in-trade in 1992 on the basis of board and shareholder resolutions, development steps, and applications for change of user, and that factual finding was not shown to be perverse. The revenue therefore failed to establish any perversity in the concurrent findings, and no substantial question of law arose for interference. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235297 A joint development agreement did not amount to a transfer of factory land in assessment year 2000-01 because possession was not handed over, construction had not commenced, and the consideration was only a refundable advance contingent on performance. The land was also held to have been converted into stock-in-trade in 1992 on the basis of board and shareholder resolutions, development steps, and applications for change of user, and that factual finding was not shown to be perverse. The revenue therefore failed to establish any perversity in the concurrent findings, and no substantial question of law arose for interference. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235297