The property was handed over for the execution of the work by the developer and there was no document other than the development contract that transferred ownership of the property to the developer. In the absence of a transfer of ownership of the property and any consideration at the time of the development contract, the handing over of the property was only a temporary measure for the execution of the work by the developer and the exclusive ownership of the property in the legal sense of the term remained in the hands of the expert, who was definitively handed over by the expert at the time of the execution of the deed of sale of the built housing. The expert had executed all the sales documents for the transfer of the built dwellings to the benefit of the end user / buyer, so that the transfer of the proportional land took place only when the expert transferred the built property through sales instruments and offered the commercial income accepted by the department. In any event, if the judge had retained the part of the land that was proportionate to the built-up area to be retained by the judge, the question was not raised of a transfer of the entire land to the developer. Another interesting aspect is that the Supreme Court seems to have indicated a distinction between granting ownership for limited development purposes and partially executing an agreement to sell real estate. However, this is not the main basis for the decision of the case and it can continue to be the subject of litigation. It was also proposed to provide that, in such a situation, capital gains recognized in accordance with the general provisions of the Act are considered to be income of the previous year in which such a transfer took place and are calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without taking into account those proposed provisions. The Supreme Court has identified an interesting aspect of capital gains taxation, as it could apply to various other transactions for which there is no right to an amount when the asset is transferred. Of course, if there is a transfer of assets in one year and a provision of income for such a transfer, whether the profits are taxable and the year in which they are taxable remains an outstanding issue, which ultimately needs to be decided again by the Supreme Court.
This is because capital gains are taxable in the year of the capital transfer and the consideration resulting from the transfer is the starting point for calculating capital gains. In the case of a noted person, who is an INDIVIDUAL/UNDEVIDED HINDU family, who has concluded a specific agreement on the development of a project, the capital gain resulting from such a transfer is debited as income from the previous year, during which the graduation certificate for all or part of the project is issued by the competent authority. Let`s take an example: Mr. X converted his country into capital into stock in the 2019-20 fiscal year. In F.Y. 2020-21, he entered the JDA registered with developers and handed him the country for development. The main provisions of the JDA were as follows: the provisions of Article 2 (47) apply only in the case of capital. In accordance with section 2 (14), the capital does not include traded shares.
Once the value of the capital has been converted into shares, the provisions of Article 2(47) shall not be relevant and shall not apply. As indicated above, the new tax regime in Article 45(5A) applies only in the event of a transfer of capital to the JDA. In the event of conversion of capital assets into shares as part of the negotiation by the owner prior to the conclusion of a registered development contract, the benefit of Article 45(5A) i.e. . .