https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433913 A reopening based on alleged capital gains escapement was invalid because the development agreement gave the developer only an exclusive licence to enter and develop the land, not possession in part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. On that footing, the agreement did not amount to a transfer within section 2(47)(v), since the possession requirement for deemed transfer was not satisfied. The jurisdictional foundation for reopening therefore failed, and the notice and the rejection order were set aside. en-us Fri, 10 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2023 09:41:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433913 A reopening based on alleged capital gains escapement was invalid because the development agreement gave the developer only an exclusive licence to enter and develop the land, not possession in part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. On that footing, the agreement did not amount to a transfer within section 2(47)(v), since the possession requirement for deemed transfer was not satisfied. The jurisdictional foundation for reopening therefore failed, and the notice and the rejection order were set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433913