Nataraju (HUF) v. PCIT (2021) 282 Taxman 396 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 47 : Capital gains-Capital asset-Transaction not regarded as transfer-Transfer of land under joint development agreement-Order was set aside. [S. 2(14), 2(15)(iii)(a), 2(15)(iii)(b), 2(47), 246A, 264, Art. 264]

Assessee entered into a joint development agreement in respect of a land owned by it.  Assessing Officer computed capital gain on account of transfer of land of assessee under said agreement and  made addition to income of assessee. Against the order of single judge an appeal was filed. On appeal the Court held that  the  Assessing Officer had not applied parameters as stipulated under section 2(14)(iii)(a) or (b) so as to determine that whether such land sold by assessee was a capital asset or not. Court also observed that the Assessing Officer has not examined that whether there was ‘transfer’ of land by assessee as per provisions of section 2(47) or not. Order of the Assessing Officer was  set aside. Order of single judge was set aside.