Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – (By converting assets into shares in trading) – Valuation Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 – Assessee companies bought n.A. 2002 – On 30.12.2005, it transferred this land to a real estate developer through a development agreement – Instead of such a transfer, 27 per cent of the built-up area was in the form of dwellings/bunglows, which were then sold to various purchasers – the revenues from the transfer of land through the development agreement and the subsequent sale of dwellings and bunglows were to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 45, paragraph 2. Given that 27 per cent of the built-up area was taken into account by the expert in return for the transfer of 73 per cent of the land area, the construction costs of this 27 per cent area could reasonably be considered a fair market value of 73 per cent of the area, in order to calculate the capital gains generated to assess the transfer of land through a development agreement, which at the same time led to the transformation of capital in exchange for trade. This capital gain should be taxed pro-rata in the hands of the valuation-eligible company if the shares held in the form of dwellings and bunglows consisting of built land and pro-rata shares are sold, while the amount that goes beyond the costs of these dwellings and assets would be taxed as business income in the hands of the valuation company. It is clear from the agreements and related legal principles that all dwellings received in the land use contract would technically become a home for the U/s 54/54F claim, although they are independent units. Under the current provisions of Section 45, the capital gain in the transfer year is taxable only in certain cases. The definition of “transfer” includes, among other things, any agreement or transaction in which rights are transferred in the event of partial performance of the contract, even if the title has not been transferred. In such a scenario, the execution of the joint development contract between the property owner and the developer triggers the capital gains tax debt in the hands of the owner, the year in which the property is given to the developer for the development of a project. GAAR is in itself an object of full comment. However, it would be unfair if I did not warn readers, at least in short, of their possible application to agreements in the form of development agreements. – Owners are eager to build a building on the land mentioned, but due to the unsuitable experience in the construction and development of land, charged with the same for developer development The taxation of capital income in the hands of the landowner, which arose from the transfer of land from the owner to the developer in a JDA, has always been a controversial topic. The JDA model is often questioned by evaluators because the tax obligation is not clear in the hands of landowners and the amount of the taxable consideration is also determined by the landowner. Whether the jDA between the landowner and the developer should lead to the formation of government opportunities between them and whether the PDO tax is triggered.

In addition, the AOP approach could also be applied by tax authorities. The stock held in the trade can only be considered transferred during the year in which the notator executed the result of the sale by transferring the stock to the trade, and not if the notator gave the owner a common development stock. As has already been argued in the above cases, the provisions of Section 2, paragraph 47, point v) would apply only to the asset and not to the asset in the trading. If, as part of a development agreement, the auditor authorizes the developer to enter the premises of his land in order to take all necessary measures to build housing, it could be said that the auditor handed over ownership of his land to the developer and therefore made a “transfer” in accordance with Section 2 (47) and that he was taxable as a capital gain of the year a