Held that\u00a0\u00a0 a reading of the joint development agreement showed that there was no transfer or sale of the asset (land) thereunder at the time of execution of the agreement. Even the payment made by the developer to the owner was a refundable security. Since there was no sale of stock, the assessee had not returned any profit or gains from the business in his return of income. Even the Principal Commissioner had not given any finding that the assessee had earned any profit from the sale of stock-in-trade. The joint development agreement entered into by the assessee with the developer did not amount to a transfer ; therefore, section\u00a043CA\u00a0would not be attracted to the case.. Each and every document produced before the registration authority and which was subject to stamp duty could not be regarded as a transfer deed or conveyance deed. Mere registration of the agreement with the registration authority and payment of stamp duty thereon could not ipso facto attract section\u00a043CA\u00a0when neither the joint development agreement nor the registering or stamp duty authority treated the agreement as one of transfer or conveyance. No profits had been earned by the assessee either actual or hypothetical in the current case. The Assessing Officer\u2019s assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revision order was quashed. Referred CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (2017)398 ITR 531 (SC)\u00a0 (AY.2014-15)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Transfer-Joint Development agreement deed-Deed stamped at fixed value and not regarded as transfer or conveyance of property-Mere registration of agreement and payment of stamp duty cannot attract provision of section 43CA-Revision order was quashed [S. 2(47) 43CA, 50C]. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37194","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-9FU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37194","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37194"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37194\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37195,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37194\/revisions\/37195"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}