The Assessing Officer issued the notice to assesss the capital gains on the basis of joint development treating the transaction as transfer. The assessee filed a detailed response stating that the assesser had not received any consideration under the joint development agreements and that the two joint development agreements did not constitute any “trans fer under section 2(47) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee cancelled the two joint development agreements because of non-performance by the developers. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act making an addition to the returned income of the assessee under capital gains. The Assessing Officer held that the two joint development agreements constituted transfer in terms of section 2(47) of the Act and that the minimum guaranteed  return amounts reflected in the development agreements had accrued to the assessee even though the assessee might not have actually received them. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment order. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal restored the assessment order.  On appeal by the assessee  allowing the appeal, the Court held that  the joint development agreements dated December 31, 2008, were not registered, though they were required to be compulsorily registered under section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, post the introduction of this provision by the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001. In the joint development agreements the ownership of the capital asset was retained by the assessee through-out. The clauses relating to parting of possession, besides being unclear, suggested that at the highest, possession was to be parted with for the limited purpose of development. The unregistered agreement dated December 31, 2008, could not be construed as a document effecting transfer of the subject properties in terms of section 2(47) of the Act. Accordingly not liable to be assessed as capital gains. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. Followed, CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) (AY. 2005-06 to 2011-12)