How many judgments cite Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT?

150 judgments on BharatTax cite Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT (260 ITR 491), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 148, Section 2(47)(v), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 45.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53a section 53 section 2(47)joint development agreement jda transfer of capital asset date of transfer section 45 section 54 long term capital gain fair market value

Judgments citing Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tayana Consult Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1566/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Tayana Consult Pvt. Ltd., No.642, 4th Main, 2nd Stage, Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Indira Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 038. PAN: AABCG 8768P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT) Respondent by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Date of hearing : 15.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2017 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member This appeal is prefe…

Metal Rolling Works Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1857/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 2(47)(v)Section 269U

…nce of the contract by the owners and is therefore the same is hit by the provisions of sec. 2(47)(v) of the Income tax Act, 1961. He also took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491)(Bom) in this regard. The assessee had relied upon two tribunal decisions to claim that the tax incidence would arise only in the year of receipt of consideration, but the AO held that the facts of those cases are distinguishable. Accordingly the AO concluded as under:- “In view of the facts mentioned above I hold that the head of income under wh…

American Spring & Pressing Works Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT - 12, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 2830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)Section 45(2)

…transfer has been completed immediately upon entering into development agreement. In this regard, he relied upon the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act and also decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (260 ITR 491). 4 M/s. American Spring & Pressing Accordingly, he took the view that the assessee would be liable to pay capital gains tax since the necessary events making the assessee liable have occurred during the year under consideration, viz., (a) conversion of capital asset into stock in trade and (b) transfer of such asset has been completed as per t…

Karsan D Gori, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

ITA 1638/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.1638/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Karsan D Gori, Income Tax Officer 22(1)(3), 42, Karishma Chs, Mumbai. फनाभ/ Gandhi Nagar, Sarvodaya, Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086 Appellant Respondent Pan: Acbpg2357D अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Dhirajlal Z Patel प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 4.4.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 27.4.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-Mumbai, Dated 16.12.2013, Pertains To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee In All The Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.22,42,843/- By The Ld.Cit(A) As Made By The Ao On Account Of Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg).

For Appellant: Shri Dhirajlal Z PatelFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…to sale was registered, and the terms of contract were complied with within a stipulated period as laid down in the agreement between the transferor and the transferee. 7. The Hon. Bombay High Court in the case Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs CIT reported in 260 ITR 491 laid down following principles with regard to transfer of property u/s 2(47) of the Act: “Before us, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that the date on which possession is parted with by the transferor is the date which should be taken into account for determining the relevant Accounting Year in which the liability accrues. It was argued o…

ACIT 31(1), Mumbai vs. Awadhnarayan L Singh, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no

ITA 4267/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4264/Mum/2015 & Ita 4267/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Awadhnarayan L Singh, बनाम/ Income Tax – 31(1), B-5/102, Awadh House, V. Erstwhile Acit/Dcit 24(3), Thakur Laxmi Singh Room No. 701, Estate, C-11, 7 Th Floor, Bkc S.V. Road, Bandra (E), Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 051. Mumbai – 400 062 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aagps0470C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…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 transfe…

ACIT 31(1), Mumbai vs. Awadhanarayan L Singh, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no

ITA 4264/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Just Textiles Ltd, Ambernath vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…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…

Sri. M. Parameshwara Murthy, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT(DR)(ITAT-2)

Section 118Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

…being exchanged. 3. Without prejudice, the reliance of the learned Commissioner on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Dr. T K Dayalu which had adverted to Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakdas Kapadia (260 ITR 491) and other cases is misplaced as the facts of the case on hand were entirely different in so far as the consideration in this case was indefinite and not quantifiable in the foreseeable future. 4. The learned Commissioner has grossly erred in holding that the nature capital gain was short term when in reality the effective transfer was only durin…

ITO 28(2)(4), Navi Mumbai vs. Pandit Dasrath Jadhav, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 7350/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh (DR)For Respondent: Shri Amar Gahlot (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…mhhaji Nagar CHS Ltd 370 ITR 325(Bombay) (h) Andhra Networks Vs DCIT 57 taxman.com 115(Hydrabad Tribunal) (i) DCIT Vs Jai TRikanand Rao 41 taxman.com 453(Mumbai-Tri) (j) Sunil Sidhrathbhai Vs CIT (1985) 23Taxman14W(SC) (k) Chaturbhuj Dwarkadass Kapadia Vs CIT 260 ITR 491(Bombay) 4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also gone through the various decisions relied by the parties and the written submission filed by the assessee. The AO while framing the assessment observed that the assessee entered into agreement for transfer of developmen…

Chennakeshava Murthy, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1234/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

…levant and in the present case, it is not disputed that assessee has already received a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs in addition to the structures which would enable to put up construction. 8. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 491 / 129 Taxman 497 held that the date relevant for attracting capital gain having regard to the definition under section 2(47) of the Act is the date on which possession is handed over by the developer and has observed as follows: "Under section 2(47)(v), any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken over or retained in part performa…

C. Jagannath HUF, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1231/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

Income Tax Officer-Ward-30(1), Kolkata vs. Smt. Maya Sanyal, Kolkata

ITA 2854/KOL/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-30(1), -Versus- Smt. Maya Sanyal Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aatps 0946 G) (Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2007-08 A.C.I.T., Circle-17, -Versus- Smt. Indrani Sanyal Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aatps 0947 H) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri I.Banerjee, FCA

Section 143(3)

…kes place in the year in which the possession was given to the developer for construction of the property. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs CIT reported in (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom) . 6. The ld CITA by placing reliance on these decisions held that no capital gain can be taxed in the assessment year under appeal as the transfer took place in the year 1997 itself. The ld CITA also observed that even on merits, the assessee was able to demonstrate with reference to the registered valuer’s report, the contents of which we…

A.C.I.T., Circle-17, Kolkata vs. Indrani Sanyal, Kolkata

ITA 2810/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri I.Banerjee, FCA

Section 143(3)

Dikson & Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1062/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Dikson & Company, Income Tax Officer 14(1)(3), 380-D, Shanker Seth Wadi, Earnest House, Vs. Jss Road, Chirabazar, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaafd2743B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Neel Khandelwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B.S. Bist, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2016

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…the developer vide Development Agreement dated 29-06-2001, capital gain arising from such transfer was taxable in A.Y. 2002-03, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas 5 M/s. Dikson & Company Kapadia v. CIT 260 ITR 491 (Bom) wherein it was held that in case of passing of domain and control of the immovable property by grant of an irrevocable authority or licence, the date of agreement of development will constitute the date of transfer of the capital asset. I find that the AO is also not averse to said contention of the appellant since he himself has stated tha…

ITO-16(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Thakershi A. Veera, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 6553/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Yadav, DRFor Respondent: Shri V.C. Shah

Section 2(47)

…ital gains. This gave raise to the dispute / litigation before us. CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee relying heavily on various decisions including the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom.) and another decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geetadevi Pasari (2009) (17 DTR 280) (Bom.) apart from many other decisions. Para 2.4.4 of the CIT (A)‟s order is relevant in this regard. CIT (A) opined that the facts of the present case are in parimateria with the above cited decisions (Para 2.4.5 is relevant). Howeve…

Bimla Devi D Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2270/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri D. Karunakara Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh KakeFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…he CIT (A). 3. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, assessee reiterated the submissions made before the AO and relied heavily on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom.) and another decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geetadevi Pasari (2009) (17 DTR 280) (Bom.) apart from many other decisions which are relevant for the proposition that the date of possession of the property is relevant. Assessee also argued that the major portion of the payment ie 80% was already paid in the period on…

ACIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Jawaharlal L Agicha, Mumbai

ITA 1844/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 17(3) Shri Jawaharlal L. Agicha R.No.614, 6Th Floor, 99, Ray Road, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033 Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adjpa2926K Revenue By Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit-Dr) Respondent By Shri Hiro Rai (Ar)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(i)Section 2(47)(v)Section 4(1)

…transfer as per section 2(47)(v) of the Act, and therefore, the AO had rightly held that long term capital gain was taxable during the year under consideration. In his support, Ld. CIT-DR relied upon following judgments: 1. Chaturbuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT 260 ITR 491(Bom) 2. Jasbir Singh Sarkaria v CIT AAR. No.724 of 2006 dt. 30.08.2007 3. Electro Zavod (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 278 ITR 189 (Cal) 4. Dr. Maya Shenoy vs. ACIT 124 TTJ 692 (Hyd) 5. Shri Mahesh Nemichandra Ganeshwade vs. ITO 594/PN/10 dated 29.03.2012 6. V. Ramchandra Const. P. Ltd. 11 taxmann.com415(Agra) 7 Jawaharlal L. Agicha 7. Sureshchandra Aga…

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. Mr. B. Kunhi Ahmed, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1448/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri B.Kunhi Ahmed, Hasnain Nadir, Opp. Fr. Mullers Hostel, Deralakatte, Mangalore. … Respondent Pa No.Ablpa 9471 B

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri B.Kunhi Ahmed, Hasnain Nadir, Opp. Fr. Mullers Hostel, Deralakatte, Mangalore. … Respondent PA No.ABLPA 9471 B Appellant by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR) Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 27/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 26/08/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the order of the CIT(A), Panaji-2, dated 25/08/2015 fo…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are treated as allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3337/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR

Section 143Section 148Section 2(47)Section 254(1)

…3. 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 transfer…

Sri. N.G. Chandra Reddy (HUF), Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 390/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Renukadevi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 53A

….3165 of 2005 has held that in a development agreement the relevant date for attracting capital gains is the date on which possession is handed over to the developer. Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT 260 ITR 491,wherein it has been held that if a contract read as a whole indicates passing of or transferring of control of the property in favour of Developer then the date of contract would be relevant to decide the year of taxability. 7 In the instant case the assessee has not offered capital gains in the year of entering of JDA. The prima facie capital…