Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

260 ITR 491High Court2003#662 most cited

What is Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT authority for?

For capital gains purposes, a 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) occurs and capital gains arise in the year when possession of the property is handed over in part performance of a contract, such as a joint development agreement. This was the settled position before the specific provisions of section 45(5A) were introduced.

150

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT · section 2(47)(v) · section 45 · section 53A Transfer of Property Act · capital gains · date of transfer · joint development agreement · JDA · possession in part performance · transfer of capital asset · section 45(5A)

Also reported as

180 CTR 107

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 45Section 53A of the Transfer of Property ActSection 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53asection 53section 2(47)joint development agreementjdatransfer of capital assetdate of transfersection 45section 54long term capital gainfair market value

Judgments citing Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

Rama Rao Gottumukkala, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1233/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…ied on, there was handing over of the possession on which there was no dispute, whereas in this case there was no handing over of the possession. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chaturbhuj Dwaraakdas Kapadia Vs. CIT [260 ITR 491] (Bom) it was submitted that Ld.CIT(A) wrongly applied to the facts of the case. Explaining further, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court gave the judgment in a case related to a sale of property in the guise of development agreement, whereas in this case, the agreements were genuine development agreements and there is no passing o…

Kondal Rao Kurmyagari, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1232/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…ied on, there was handing over of the possession on which there was no dispute, whereas in this case there was no handing over of the possession. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chaturbhuj Dwaraakdas Kapadia Vs. CIT [260 ITR 491] (Bom) it was submitted that Ld.CIT(A) wrongly applied to the facts of the case. Explaining further, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court gave the judgment in a case related to a sale of property in the guise of development agreement, whereas in this case, the agreements were genuine development agreements and there is no passing o…

Seth Industries P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(2)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2279/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijitdey & Shrirajesh Kumaracit (Osd)-2(3) M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Room No. 556, 5Th Floor 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2) 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Mumbai Vs. Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 2(47)(b)Section 50(1)

…the property took place in the financial year 2005-06, hence, the capital gain should have been taxed in A.Y. 2006-07. In this context the AO referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj DwarkadasKapaida vs. CIT 260 ITR 491. Thus, the AO observed that income chargeable to tax in A.Y. 2006-07 has escaped assessment and proposed to initiate action for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2006-07 to bring the capital gain from sale of property to tax in A.Y. 2006-07. Further, the AO observed that for all practical purposes the assessee has reli…

ACIT (Psd) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Seth Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4094/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijitdey & Shrirajesh Kumaracit (Osd)-2(3) M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Room No. 556, 5Th Floor 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2) 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Mumbai Vs. Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 2(47)(b)Section 50(1)

…the property took place in the financial year 2005-06, hence, the capital gain should have been taxed in A.Y. 2006-07. In this context the AO referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj DwarkadasKapaida vs. CIT 260 ITR 491. Thus, the AO observed that income chargeable to tax in A.Y. 2006-07 has escaped assessment and proposed to initiate action for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2006-07 to bring the capital gain from sale of property to tax in A.Y. 2006-07. Further, the AO observed that for all practical purposes the assessee has reli…

Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

…on 2(47) of the Act, possession was unanimous with transfer and the liability for capital gain tax will arise as soon as possession takes place. However, this position was altered vide the Mumbai High Court decision in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadis Kapadia 260 ITR 491. The Bombay High Court held that Clauses (v) and (vi) were introduced in section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1988. They provide that “transfer” includes (i) any transaction which allows possession to be taken/retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Pro…

ITO 34(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Homai Homi Shroff, Mumbai

ITA 7387/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No 7387/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: Shri Farukh Irani and Shri Falee H
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 45Section 54Section 54F

…at the documents was not registered, cannot be a ground to disallow, the very right of the assessee. In this respect, Ld. CIT(A) had relied upon the judgments contained in its orders and more particularly the judgment of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vrs. CIT (260 ITR 491) wherein such transfer of right in the property was recognized by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the entire facts had rightly concluded that assessee had enjoyed a ‘right of possession’ 6 I.T.A. No. 7387/Mum/2016 Ms. Homai Homi Shroff which was by way of tenancy and the consideration received of transfer was rig…

Manilal Jawaharmal Wadhwa, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4151/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Shri Manilal Jawaharmal Ito Ward-19(2)(4), Piramal Wadhwa, 205, Blue Diamond Chambers, Room No. 310, 3Rd बिधम/ Building, Juhu Tara Road, Floor, Parel Vs. Near Sndt College, Mumbai-400 012 Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 049 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aakpw0582F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. Shetty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54

…9 was confirmed by the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that on further appeal the Tribunal vide its order dated 22.09.2017, following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom) concluded that the long term capital gain on the sale of the property under consideration was liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee in A.Y 2009-10. It was thus submitted by the ld. A.R that the issue pertaining to the year of assessability of the LTCG on the transfer of the property under consideration as on date stood supporte…

ACIT 31(2), Mumbai vs. Harinarayan L. Singh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2532/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Respondent: Shri N S Janpangi (CIT-DR)

…-03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

ITO 31(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jaiprakash L. Singh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1264/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Respondent: Shri N S Janpangi (CIT-DR)

…-03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Natasha Omprakash Singh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4041/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Respondent: Shri N S Janpangi (CIT-DR)

…-03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

Harnarayan L. Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3301/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Respondent: Shri N S Janpangi (CIT-DR)

…-03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

Satyaprakash Singh, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3261/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Respondent: Shri N S Janpangi (CIT-DR)

…-03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Satyaprakash Singh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3093/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Respondent: Shri N S Janpangi (CIT-DR)

…-03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Satyaprakash Singh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2345/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Respondent: Shri N S Janpangi (CIT-DR)

…-03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

Jaiprakash L. Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1574/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Respondent: Shri N S Janpangi (CIT-DR)

…-03. Hence, in terms of sec.2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act, the taxability of Capital gain has to be considered in AY 2003-04. Our view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhu Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491). 9 The legal position of development agreement vis-à-vis section 2(47(v) of the Act was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, cited supra. The relevant observations of the High Court, in that case, are extracted below: “It was argued on behalf of the assessee that there was no effective transf…

ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bhavani N. Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 180/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi, D.R
Section 148Section 2Section 54E

…is concerned the transaction was concluded by 25/10/2005. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the revenue, that the transaction was concluded in August 2006. 5.5 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chatrabhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) has held : "Clauses (v) and (vi) were introduced in section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1988. They provide that "transfer" includes (i) any transaction which allows possession to be taken/retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an…

Sh. Jai Ram, Jagadhari vs. ITO, Yamunanagar

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

…o the capital asset. So, the 'transfer' of capital asset is covered by section 2(47)(i) of the Act and not by 2(47)(v) as contemplated by the appellant. In the judgment given by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Chaturbhuj Dawarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT 260 ITR 491, the Hon'ble Court observed that however/the mode of 'transfer' as per section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of TP Act is in the cases of such agreements which are in the nature of development agreements where the possession has been transferred the agreement has been made but the title has not been transferred by way of registration. The Hon'bl…

Sh. Amar Singh, Jagadhari vs. ITO, Yamunanagar

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

…o the capital asset. So, the 'transfer' of capital asset is covered by section 2(47)(i) of the Act and not by 2(47)(v) as contemplated by the appellant. In the judgment given by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Chaturbhuj Dawarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT 260 ITR 491, the Hon'ble Court observed that however/the mode of 'transfer' as per section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of TP Act is in the cases of such agreements which are in the nature of development agreements where the possession has been transferred the agreement has been made but the title has not been transferred by way of registration. The Hon'bl…

Jus Textiles Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2985/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am& Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., Vs. Acit15(2), K-5, Additional Midc Anand Mumbai - 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Vinita Saha -Ar Revenue By Sh. Alok Johri Cit -Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…147 of the Act. Even otherwise the income is assessable in the year 2007-08 as the MOU clearly states that all the control over the property transferred to the buyer on execution of MOU. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs CIT(260 ITR 491)(Bom) held that "even arrangements confirming privileges of ownership without transfer of title could fall under Section2(47)(v) if the transferee is ready and willing to act upon the arrangements. " In the case of assessee the MOU has given deemed ownership to the transferee and the said MOU has finally acted upon with 45 days by entering into c…

Laxmidhar Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 53A

…tal gains was assessable in AY 2003-04 while the assessee claimed that the same was assessable in AY 2004-05 when the consideration was received. The C/T (A) upheld the claim of the AO. The Tribunal (included in file), relying on Chaturbhuj Dwarkaddas Kapadia 260 ITR 491 (Bom), Dr.T. K. Dayalu 202 Taxman 531 (Kar) & Maya Shenoy 124 TTJ (Hyd) 692, held that as the assessee had handed over possession of the property to the developer, it was a clear case of transfer by exchange within the meaning of s.2(47) (v) read with s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It was held that the fact that the consideration was rec…