https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237207 An agreement to sell did not amount to a transfer for capital-gains purposes because possession was not handed over, ownership remained with the assessee, and there was no relinquishment or extinguishment of rights within section 2(47) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Business expenditure supported by cheques, TDS, bills and surrounding commercial facts was treated as allowable, including payments to intermediaries, architect fees, site-levelling and video surveillance charges; only unsupported technical expenditure and earlier-year expenditure were disallowed. Seized money had to be adjusted under section 132B before recomputing interest under sections 234A and 234B. The protective assessment issue was remitted for fresh determination in light of the substantive assessment in another concern. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Apr 2016 10:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237207 An agreement to sell did not amount to a transfer for capital-gains purposes because possession was not handed over, ownership remained with the assessee, and there was no relinquishment or extinguishment of rights within section 2(47) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Business expenditure supported by cheques, TDS, bills and surrounding commercial facts was treated as allowable, including payments to intermediaries, architect fees, site-levelling and video surveillance charges; only unsupported technical expenditure and earlier-year expenditure were disallowed. Seized money had to be adjusted under section 132B before recomputing interest under sections 234A and 234B. The protective assessment issue was remitted for fresh determination in light of the substantive assessment in another concern. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237207