In The Blind Men and the Elephant by the American poet John Godfrey Saxony (1816-1887), six blind men meet an elephant for the first time and each human being touches a different part of the elephant and predicts what the elephant looks like. It is the same story of income tax on the Common Development Agreement. Landowners, developers, appraisers, tax advisors, accountants and appeal authorities are like these six blind men who touch the different facets of the elephant called JDA and predict what the tax implications should be! 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 the title to the property to the developer. In the absence of transfer of ownership and consideration on the date of the development contract, the surrender of the property was only a temporary measure of construction work by the developer, and the exclusive ownership of the property in the legal sense of the contract remained due to the auditor, who was ultimately handed over at the time of the completion of the agreement to sell the dwellings by the auditor. The expert carried out all the sales work for the transfer of the built dwellings to the user/buyer, so that the transfer of the land on a pro-rata basis took place only when the expert transferred the land through sales work and offered the operating products accepted by the department. In any event, when the auditor maintained the portion of the land in proportion to the area to be conserved by the expert, there was no discussion of a transfer of the entire land to the developer. It was also proposed that in such cases, capital gains set out in the general provisions of the Act are considered to be income from the previous year in which the transfer took place and calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act, regardless of those provisions. – The capital gain resulting from the application of S. 45 (2) [investment converted into shares in trading and subsequently sold] must be taxed proportionally in proportion to the goods/shares sold over different years. [Ajay Kumar Sah Jagati vs. ITO, DCIT vs.
Crest Hotels Ltd., etc.] In addition, it was proposed in the 2017 EU budget to provide that the value of stamp duty is its share, the country or building, or both, in the project at the time of the issuance of this certificate of completion, possibly plus a monetary consideration received, such as the full value of the consideration received or due by the transfer of the asset. Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital Gains – Exemption from, in the case of investment in a dwelling house (“A dwelling house” position before 1-4-2015) – – Phrase “a residential house” in section 54F includes more than one apartment/apartment as long as all apartments are located in the same place/address.