https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383252 A redevelopment agreement was treated as an executory arrangement, not a transfer of a capital asset under section 2(47), because possession had not been handed over and the society retained ownership and control. Even on the assumption that additional FSI or development rights were transferred, no taxable capital gains arose where no ascertainable cost of acquisition could be attributed to those rights and the computation mechanism under sections 45, 48 and 55(2) failed. Section 50C was also inapplicable because it applies only to transfers of land or building, not development rights. The overall result was that the capital gains addition was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383252 A redevelopment agreement was treated as an executory arrangement, not a transfer of a capital asset under section 2(47), because possession had not been handed over and the society retained ownership and control. Even on the assumption that additional FSI or development rights were transferred, no taxable capital gains arose where no ascertainable cost of acquisition could be attributed to those rights and the computation mechanism under sections 45, 48 and 55(2) failed. Section 50C was also inapplicable because it applies only to transfers of land or building, not development rights. The overall result was that the capital gains addition was unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383252