https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386859 A joint development agreement does not amount to a transfer under section 2(47)(v) unless it places the developer in possession in the nature of part performance under section 53A and gives effective control over the capital asset. Here, the agreement allowed only limited entry for development, expressly denied delivery of possession in part performance, and kept legal possession with the owners. The developer also had no exclusive possession, and entry was contingent on preconditions that were not satisfied during the relevant year. No transfer arose in that year, so capital gains could not be levied. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386859 A joint development agreement does not amount to a transfer under section 2(47)(v) unless it places the developer in possession in the nature of part performance under section 53A and gives effective control over the capital asset. Here, the agreement allowed only limited entry for development, expressly denied delivery of possession in part performance, and kept legal possession with the owners. The developer also had no exclusive possession, and entry was contingent on preconditions that were not satisfied during the relevant year. No transfer arose in that year, so capital gains could not be levied. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386859