Where the AO has taken cognizance of the definition of ‘transfer’ u/s. 2(47)(v) of the Act read with section u/s 53A of Transfer of Property Act to hold that `transfer’ took place in the year 2008 itself. It was held that the Developer was allowed to enter the property only as Licensee. When title to a part of such property itself was disputed and it vested with Government of Maharashtra at the time of the Agreements in 2008 because of the order of the Competent Authority under the ULC Act, there could have been no question of allowing the Developer any possession for the enjoyment of property as its owner. As there was no transfer of possession at the material time, the case of the AO invoking section 53A of the TPA to brand the transaction as a ‘transfer’ u/s 2(47)(v), automatically fails.  Appeal of revenue was dismissed. (AY. 2008-09)