https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334099 A development agreement for slum rehabilitation did not constitute a transfer under section 2(47)(v) because the developer's rights were conditional on approvals, the assessee retained physical and exclusive possession, and the agreement was unregistered. As the requirements of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and the registration framework were not satisfied, no taxable capital gain arose in the year under review. The advance received under the agreement was likewise not taxable as capital gains in that year and was to be dealt with under section 51 when the capital asset is eventually transferred. en-us Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Nov 2016 17:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334099 A development agreement for slum rehabilitation did not constitute a transfer under section 2(47)(v) because the developer's rights were conditional on approvals, the assessee retained physical and exclusive possession, and the agreement was unregistered. As the requirements of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and the registration framework were not satisfied, no taxable capital gain arose in the year under review. The advance received under the agreement was likewise not taxable as capital gains in that year and was to be dealt with under section 51 when the capital asset is eventually transferred. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334099