https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310552 Karnataka HC held that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) between property owners and developer did not constitute transfer of capital asset under Section 2(47). The court found that delivery of possession to developer was solely for development/construction purposes, not transfer. Revenue's contention that capital gains tax liability arose from JDA was rejected. The assessment order and ITAT decision treating it as transfer in AY 2009-10 was deemed perverse and untenable. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee. en-us Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:38:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310552 Karnataka HC held that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) between property owners and developer did not constitute transfer of capital asset under Section 2(47). The court found that delivery of possession to developer was solely for development/construction purposes, not transfer. Revenue's contention that capital gains tax liability arose from JDA was rejected. The assessment order and ITAT decision treating it as transfer in AY 2009-10 was deemed perverse and untenable. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310552