https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237175 Reopening of assessment was upheld because the Assessing Officer had relevant material indicating possible escapement of income after the return was processed under section 143(1). On a joint development agreement, capital gains were held chargeable in the year of transfer since effective possession and control, together with an irrevocable power of attorney and transfer of development rights, fell within sections 2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi); the taxable consideration included the full accruing consideration, including flats. However, the Revenue's higher valuation of the proposed flat was rejected and the flat was to be valued at Rs. 4,500 per sq. ft. Deduction under section 54F was denied because the statutory conditions were not met. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237175 Reopening of assessment was upheld because the Assessing Officer had relevant material indicating possible escapement of income after the return was processed under section 143(1). On a joint development agreement, capital gains were held chargeable in the year of transfer since effective possession and control, together with an irrevocable power of attorney and transfer of development rights, fell within sections 2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi); the taxable consideration included the full accruing consideration, including flats. However, the Revenue's higher valuation of the proposed flat was rejected and the flat was to be valued at Rs. 4,500 per sq. ft. Deduction under section 54F was denied because the statutory conditions were not met. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237175