https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389819 Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not attracted because permission to develop the land amounted only to a licence and did not amount to possession in part performance; accordingly, the arrangement did not fall within section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act. By contrast, the later compromise deed, staged payments, and encashment of the cheques extinguished the transferor's rights in the immovable property and produced a de facto transfer. The Supreme Court therefore held that the transaction fell within section 2(47)(ii) and section 2(47)(vi), and capital gains were taxable in the relevant assessment year on completion of the compromise arrangement and receipt of the final consideration. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389819 Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not attracted because permission to develop the land amounted only to a licence and did not amount to possession in part performance; accordingly, the arrangement did not fall within section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act. By contrast, the later compromise deed, staged payments, and encashment of the cheques extinguished the transferor's rights in the immovable property and produced a de facto transfer. The Supreme Court therefore held that the transaction fell within section 2(47)(ii) and section 2(47)(vi), and capital gains were taxable in the relevant assessment year on completion of the compromise arrangement and receipt of the final consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389819