https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379699 Capital gains could not be charged on a development agreement where the assessee retained possession and use of the land, the developer had not taken possession, approvals were not obtained, and development had not commenced. The record did not show actual delivery of vacant possession, so the statutory conditions for a deemed transfer were not satisfied; the agricultural character of the land also supported the view that it was not a capital asset for the year in question. Reopening of the assessment was treated as valid because the return had originally been processed under section 143(1) and later material indicated possible escapement of income. en-us Fri, 03 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2019 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379699 Capital gains could not be charged on a development agreement where the assessee retained possession and use of the land, the developer had not taken possession, approvals were not obtained, and development had not commenced. The record did not show actual delivery of vacant possession, so the statutory conditions for a deemed transfer were not satisfied; the agricultural character of the land also supported the view that it was not a capital asset for the year in question. Reopening of the assessment was treated as valid because the return had originally been processed under section 143(1) and later material indicated possible escapement of income. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379699