Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP

Tax Connect is pleased to share an Article on "GST on RCM basis on Statutory Levies"

The Rajasthan Technical University case RAJASTHAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, KOTA Vs UNION OF INDIA [2026-VIL-206-RAJ] against the Union of India provides a some relief on the applicability of GST to statutory levies. At the heart of the dispute was whether affiliation fees charged by a university to colleges could be treated as “consideration” for a supply of service under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The court examined the statutory framework closely, noting that Section 7(1)(a) requires a supply to be made in the course or furtherance of business, while Section 7(1)(aa) requires that such supply be for consideration. Affiliation, however, is not a commercial activity but a statutory requirement — colleges must obtain affiliation to admit students, conduct examinations, and confer degrees. This makes affiliation an essential regulatory function rather than a business transaction.

The judgment emphasized that affiliation fees are compulsory statutory levies, not payments in exchange for a service. Since the definition of “business” under Section 2(17) of the CGST Act excludes such statutory functions, the court held that these fees cannot be treated as consideration. Furthermore, the affiliation process is integrally linked to education, admissions, and examinations, which are exempt under Entry 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate). The court also reinforced the principle that circulars or executive clarifications cannot override statutory provisions or exemption notifications, thereby safeguarding the primacy of law over administrative directions. It must be noted that Circular No. 234/28/2024-GST held that affiliation Fee Taxable

2. Applicability of GST on the service of affiliation provided by universities to colleges:
2.3 Thus, as recommended by the 54th GST Council, it is hereby clarified that the affiliation services provided by universities to their constituent colleges are not covered within the ambit of exemptions provided to educational institutions in the notification No. 12/2017- CT(R) dated 28.06.2017 and GST at the rate of 18% is applicable on the affiliation services provided by the universities.

3. Applicability of GST on the service of affiliation provided by Central and State educational boards or Councils, or other similar bodies, to schools:
3.4 In its 54th meeting, the GST Council further recommended regularizing the GST liability on such services provided to all schools for the period from 01.07.2017 to 17.06.2021, i.e., the date of issuance of Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST wherein accreditation services of boards are clarified to be taxable at the rate of 18%.
3.5 Therefore, as recommended by the GST Council, it is clarified that services of affiliation, provided to schools by Central or State educational boards or councils, or other similar bodies, by whatever name called, are taxable. Further, as recommended by the Council, the payment of GST on the services of affiliation provided by Central and State educational boards or Councils, or other similar bodies, to all schools is regularized on 'as is where is' basis for the period from 01.07.2017 to 17.06.2021.

This ruling however, draws a line between statutory levies imposed under law and payments made for commercial services. However the issue has not reached finality as The Hon’ble Madras High Court has held the opposite in the case of BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY Vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF GST (STINTELLIGENCE), TRICHY DIVISION, TIRUCHIRAPPALI [2026-VIL-181-MAD]. It held as under:

As per the definition of 'service' under the GST Act and the exemption notification No.12/2017-CT(Rate), the exemption is restricted to services relating to admission of students and conduct of examinations by educational institutions, and does not cover services for affiliation of colleges. The Circular No. 234/28/2024 GST-dated 11.10.2024 stated that the activity of affiliation by educational boards or councils is not a service related to admission of students or conduct of examinations, and hence is liable to GST. Thus, it is clear that the fees collected for affiliation and for inspection of colleges applied for affiliation, fall beyond the scope of service connected with admission of students and conduct of examination. The extended meaning cannot be given to the expression 'services relating to admission or conduct of examination' to cover the affiliation fees collected by the University. The affiliation process is independent of the admission of students and conduct of examinations.

Thanks & Regards
Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP

Tax Connect is pleased to share an Article on "Transfer of Capital Asset will be taxed in the year of possession and not year of payment [Sec 2(47) of ITA’61 – Sec 2(109) of ITA’25]"

There is a question while computation of Capital Gain or Capital loss on transfer of immovable property that incase payments were made in parts over a period, in which FY will the capital gain or loss be assessable. Further it is important for the purpose of indexation also for the buyer. For eg. Agreement for sale of a property was made on 30.3.2013 and advances were exchanged. However, the conveyance was executed on 30.6.2014 and possession was transferred then. The question is, whether Capital Gain would be assessable in AY 14-15 or AY 15-16. The point is that the Capital Gain is on transfer of capital asset. Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act read with Section 53A of The Transfer of Property Act 1882 Act make it clear that transaction shall be treated as transfer only when possession has been taken or retained by buyer, in this case FY 14-15 corresponding to AY 15-16 and hence capital gain or loss should be calculated in such AY, as was held in the case of M/s ARCHEAN REALTY P. LTD. Vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2023-VIL-809-ITAT-CHE]. Now another question is that say the buyer again transfers the property, then for the purpose of indexation which AY should be considered as the base year. Again, according to the same principles It can be said that the base year shall be AY 15-16 itself for the purpose of indexation.

Another issue raised many a times is that say in the above example, the entire consideration was paid by the buyer on 30.3. 2013 after deduction of TDS u/s 194IA, then would the proposition change and the Capital Gain or Capital Loss be assessed in AY 14-15 as it would be deemed that the transfer took place in FY 13- 14 itself. The answer still will not change as transaction shall be treated as transfer only when possession has been taken or retained by buyer. Since possession of property has been handed over to buyer in FY 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, transfer would be considered to have taken place in AY 2015-16 only

Thanks & Regards
Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP

VILGST & TAX CONNECT: WEBINAR ON "33rd Indirect Tax Colloquium April 2026”

Session details:
Date: 25th April 2026
Time: 11:00AM - 12:30PM

Registration Link: https://tinyurl.com/ywhmyszc

Meeting Link: https://taxconnect.webex.com/taxconnect/j.php?MTID=ma9d890a83f2493e6c4c23dd3c9ce8c16

Meeting number: 2510 478 9808
Password: Tcas@2026

Team Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP

Broader 'export incentives' definition in ITA 2025 prompts CBDT clarity

According to Vivek Jalan, partner at Tax Connect Advisory Services, the broader reference to export incentives under Section 26 could signal a change in tax position, at least in law. "While the intent may be to streamline provisions rather than alter policy, the absence of clear boundaries risks expanding the tax net to benefits that may not have been meant to be taxed," he said. Jalan pointed out that notional benefits could now come under scrutiny.

Link for accessing article:

Business Standard: https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/broader-export-incentives-definition-in-ita-2025-prompts-cbdt-clarity-126042101176_1.html

Team Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP

Tax Connect is pleased to share an Article on "Demonetization Cash Deposits – Source cannot be considered as unexplained u/s 69 even when deposit is in Violation of RBI guidelines [Sec 69 of ITA’61 – Sec 103 of ITA’25]"

Demonetization cases are now at various appellate stages as after having been adjudicated and the jurisprudence is now being developed. The question in many cases where B2C/ B2B Sales are involved is whether Income Tax penalties can be invoked u/s 115BBE incase demonetized bank notes have been received by assesses even after the demonetization date declared by RBI, i.e. 8th Nov 2016. The questions to be answered are -

A. Are collection of demonetized notes after the specified date void as per Sec 22 of Contract Act and non-est, even after VAT/Service Tax Authorities have accepted the transaction?
B. Incase so, then should the transaction be considered as unaccounted and thus the source ‘unexplained’ u/s 69?

To answer these, few points need to be seen –
A. Whether there is no a sudden hike in cash sales in current year w.r.t. earlier year.
B. Whether the VAT/Service Tax has been duly paid on these transactions.
C. Whether cash sales are common to the business of the assessee and in addition to demonetized notes, other notes have also been deposited.
D. Whether the customers are identified and hence source is explained.
E. Whether there were ‘dire circumstances’ under which the assessee had to accept the notes after demonetization.

Incase the answer to the above are in the affirmative, then it cannot be disputed that the source of investments are unexplained and Section 69 read with Section 115BBE cannot be invoked as envisaged under CBDT Circular No. F No. 225/145/2019 – ITA-II dated 09.08.2019 5. Order of Chennai Tribunal in Uma Maheswari vs ITO – ITA No. 527/Chny/2022 dated 14.10.2022. Under the said Circular the CBDT had also specified that examination of business model is very important before adjudicating. The Delhi High Court in the case of Agson Global Pvt Ltd vs ACIT [2022] 325 CTR 001 also held that additions made on the sole ground of deviation in the ratio of cash sales and cash deposits during the demonetization period with that of earlier period, is improper and unlawful.

On the same lines it was held in the case of M/s PURANI HOSPITAL SUPPLIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2023-VIL-817-ITAT-CHE] that In order to invoke provisions of section 69 of the Act, two conditions must be satisfied. First and fore-most condition is there should be an investment and second condition is the assessee could not explain source for said investment. Merely for the reason that there is a violation of certain notifications/GO issued by the Government in transacting with specified bank notes, the genuine explanation offered by the assessee towards source for cash deposit cannot be rejected, unless the Assessing Officer makes out a case that the assessee has deposited unaccounted cash into bank account in specified bank notes.

Thanks & Regards
Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP

Tax Connect is pleased to share an Article on "GSTAT Appeal filed wrongly before the Principal Bench…. Dos & Don’ts of Filing Appeals Rightly & Representing Effectively before GSTAT"

GSTAT is the last forum where taxpayers can argue on facts by depositing 20% pre-deposit in totality. Thereafter, before the High Court taxpayers may argue on Matters of Law only and by depositing the entire demand in dispute incase stay is not achieved within the time limitation. Hence taxpayers have to put their best foot forward and avoid technical and substantive mistakes.
A recent matter, one of the very first, in the case of Manobendra Ghoshal vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST Delhi North & Ors., deals with a jurisdictional error in GSTAT appeal filing. The appellant mistakenly indicated in APL-05 that the matter involved a question reserved for the Principal Bench by citing a “place of supply” dispute where none existed it seems. The Principal Bench thus held that the case did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Principal Bench. However, as the GSTAT starts operations, instead of dismissing the appeal, the Principal Bench directed the Registry to transfer the case online to the Delhi State Bench. It emphasized that such errors should not prejudice appellants and that the Registry, GSTN, and NIC must ensure seamless transfer of cases between benches. Any failure in this process would be considered obstruction of justice. However, this ruling clarifies that taxpayers have to file only those appeals before the Principal Bench, which are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench.
The following are few pointers which taxpayers may thus keep in mind before filing appeals before the GSTAT:

i. File Fast: Filing shall be treated as “valid” only on issuance of “Final Acknowledgement” in Part B of FORM GST APL-02A”: While the date of filing would be considered as considered as date of issue of the provisional acknowledgement, yet only on receipt of “Final Acknowledgement” can the filing be considered as valid. Hence, incase final acknowledgement is not issued for defects, then the appeal would not be admitted. Hence, although the last date for filing appeals before GSTAT is 30th June 2026, taxpayers should not wait until the deadline. Early filing avoids risks of technical delays and ensures smoother processing.
Rule 110 (4) of CGST Rules lay down that “Where the order appealed against is uploaded on the common portal, a final acknowledgement, indicating appeal number, shall be issued 5[in Part B of FORM GST APL-02A] on removal of defects, if any, and the date of issue of the provisional acknowledgement shall be considered as the date of filing of appeal under sub-rule (1):….
Explanation.-For the purposes of this rule, the appeal shall be treated as filed only when the final acknowledgement, indicating the appeal number, is issued.”

ii. In future GSTAT may not condone the delays beyond three months:
While the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2026-VIL-209-BOM] has held that powers of The GSTAT are wide, yet Section 112 of The CGST Act 2017 binds it condonation powers only for “three months”. Hence, as seen in the case of First Stage Authorities, in future GSTAT Benches may not condone the delays more than this period. Hence taxpayers are required to be vigilant.
Section 112. lays down: (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed against him under section 107 or section 108 of this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal 2[; or the date, as may be notified by the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, for filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under this Act, whichever is later.].
(6) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal within three months after the expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (1) ,……. or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections within forty-five days after the expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (5) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.

iii. Pre-Deposit already paid – There may be a case where a pre-deposit was paid at the First stage. Thereafter the demand is reduced by an extent so that the pre-deposit now even covers the requirement of pre-deposit at the GSTAT stage. For eg. Say the Tax demand at first stage was Rs.1 Crore and pre-deposit of Rs.10 Lakhs was paid. During the Appeal at first stage the demand was reduced from Rs.1 Crore to Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore the pre-deposit of Rs.10 lakhs paid earlier now suffices the 20% requirement at the GSTAT stage. This pre-deposit earlier paid should ideally be adjusted at the filing stage and no new pre-deposit should be required.

iv. Facts, Data, and Evidence (FDE Approach) The strength of an appeal lies in facts and documentary evidence. Data must be backed by proper proof, ensuring that every claim is substantiated. Sometimes taxpayers and professionals too, commit the error of providing lots of facts and data and do not frame the matter from the evidence point of view.

v. Flow and Case Summary Arguments must follow a logical flow, with each issue distinctly framed. A concise yet comprehensive case summary, supported by a chronology of events, helps the Tribunal understand the dispute clearly.

vi. List of Dates Where multiple dates are involved—such as filing of returns, ITC availment, vendor compliance, or cancellations—a structured list of dates should be annexed for clarity.

vii. Penalty and Doctrines Even if demands are confirmed, penalties can be argued for relaxation. Doctrines such as impossibility of compliance or prejudiced mindset may be invoked to strengthen the case.

viii. Limitation Periods Sections 73 and 74 require careful year wise examination of limitation. If a show cause notice or order is time barred, it becomes a strong ground for challenge. Even a conversion of a Section 74 Order to a Section 73 Order provides a 40% relief from the demand considering reduction of the period of demand from 5 years to 3 years.

ix. Rule of Law under Section 75 All evidence must be given due cognizance. If certain documents are ignored, this must be brought to the Tribunal’s attention.

x. Additional Evidence will be admissible only incase sufficient cause is shown: Appeals must be filed online in Form APL 05. Additional evidence is admissible only if sufficient cause is shown, such as refusal by the adjudicating authority or lack of opportunity earlier.

xi. POS Issues and Cross Objections Matters involving place of supply (POS) are heard only at the Principal Bench.
Taxpayers must also file cross objections in Form APL 06 when the Department files appeals.

xii. Tribunal Powers and Strategy GSTAT may confirm, modify, annul, or remand orders. Appellants must strategize whether to bunch cases together or distinguish them individually. After GSTAT’s decision, barring a stay, the demand becomes payable.

xiii. Affidavits and Applications Affidavits must be properly attested with seal and date. Interlocutory applications such as condonation of delay must be filed in Form GSTAT 01, accompanied by affidavits where required.

xiv. Memorandum of Appearance Form 04 must be submitted with a valid vakalatnama or authorization letter. In case of change of representative, written consent of the previous representative is necessary.

xv. Judicial Precedents and Circulars Circulars can be challenged as they are not binding on taxpayers, as upheld in Vatika Township. Supreme Court rulings like Suncraft Energy and High Court decisions such as LGW Industries provide strong precedents, especially in ITC disputes, and should be invoked.
xvi. Reliance on AI Artificial intelligence tools may assist in drafting, but they should never be relied upon blindly. Every output must be cross checked against statutory provisions and factual records before submission.

Thanks & Regards
Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP

Tax Connect is pleased to share an Article on "Relief from penalty is not a right - To avoid penalty by invoking Sec 273B, ‘reasonable cause’ for failure must be shown [Sec 470 of ITA’25]"

Most penalty cases are argued by taking Shelter u/s Section 273B which provides that no penalty shall be imposable on a person or the assessee for certain violations, for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if he proves that there was “reasonable cause” for the said failure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, held that where the offence is merely technical, even if the minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority should not impose penalty. However, where offences are continuous, the decision can be distinguished. Where a no:of times in the year, a Company received cash loan and paid back, then it can be said that the violation of Section 269SS is habitual. Further, penalty u/s Section 271D may still not be levied incase the offender proves that there was “reasonable cause” for the said violation. However, even if the payments are proved to be genuine but “reasonable cause” for violation of Sec 269SS is not shown, then penalty u/s 271D cannot be avoided as was held in the case of M/s LOVE SHOPPERS LTD Vs THE DCIT [2023-VIL-841-ITAT-RKT].

Relief from penalty is thus not a right but depends upon the facts of the case

Thanks & Regards
Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP

Tax Connect is pleased to share an Article on "GST On Assignment of Leasehold Rights… The Story so far"

The assignment of leasehold rights has emerged as a contentious issue under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. While the GST Act, 2017 defines "supply" broadly under Section 7, the classification of transactions involving immovable property continues to generate litigation. The central question is whether the transfer of leasehold rights amounts to a taxable supply of service or whether it constitutes a mere transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property, outside the scope of GST.
In a recent case of M/s Vidarbha Beverages v. Union of India [2026-VIL-208-BOM], the petitioner held a long term lease for an industrial plot and constructed a factory building. Subsequently, the petitioner assigned the leasehold rights to a third party. The Department issued a show cause notice demanding GST, contending that such assignment amounted to a supply of service under Section 7(1) read with Clause 2(b) of Schedule II, which treats leasing or letting out of buildings for business or commerce as a supply of services. The Department classified the transaction as a taxable service under Sr. No. 35 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28 June 2017, which covers "other miscellaneous services" taxable at 18%. According to the authorities, the assignment of leasehold rights was akin to compensation for transfer of rights and therefore fell within the ambit of taxable services.
The Bombay High Court rejected the Department’s contention. It held that the transaction was neither a lease nor a sub lease, but an assignment of leasehold rights. Importantly, the Court observed that miscellaneous services such as washing, cleaning, or beauty services could not be extended to cover assignment of immovable property rights. Thus, the classification under Entry 35(ii) was inappropriate. The Bombay High Court also invoked the principle laid down in CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589, which held that until a contrary decision is given by another competent High Court, rulings of one High Court are binding on tribunals in other states. Thus, the Gujarat High Court’s decision was binding on authorities in Maharashtra, unless overturned by another High Court or the Supreme Court.
Gujarat High Court Precedent: The Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India had earlier ruled that assignment of leasehold rights is essentially a transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property, not a supply of service under GST. This precedent was relied upon to quash the show cause notice and adjudication order in Vidarbha Beverages. The Court emphasized that the transaction lacked the essential element of being "in the course or furtherance of business," which is a prerequisite for GST applicability.
However, In the case of M/s KOBELCO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PVT LTD [2025-VIL-171-AAR - AP], it was further held that while The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the assignment of leasehold rights in land constitutes a transfer of immovable property and is outside the purview of GST. This view may not align with intent of the GST regime. The aforesaid judgment has been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and presently pending adjudication.
Stamp Duty Consideration: Another critical factor is that stamp duty is payable on assignment of leasehold rights, reinforcing the characterization of such transactions as transfers of immovable property rather than services. This strengthens the argument that GST should not apply, as the transaction is already subject to state taxation under stamp duty laws.

Thanks & Regards
Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP

Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP is pleased to put forward the 𝟓𝟓𝟑𝐫𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 of "𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐁𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧".

We do hope that this initiative adds value to your professional sphere.

To access the same & other Issues, please click the link below :-
https://taxconnect.co.in/bulletins.php

Tax Connect is pleased to share an Article on "𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 [𝐒𝐞𝐜 𝟐(𝟒𝟕) 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐓𝐀’𝟔𝟏 – 𝐒𝐞𝐜 𝟐(𝟏𝟎𝟗) 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐓𝐀’𝟐𝟓]"

Section 2 (47) (v) of Income Tax Act provides that “transfer”, in relation to a capital asset, includes any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882);

Now, say a Development Agreement is signed in Year 1 in respect of lands which are agricultural, for formation of sites for which the conversion of land into non-agricultural land is necessary, a part advance is also received on the date of signing of this agreement. However, possession of lands for commencement of any work is provided only after the orders for conversion are issued in Year 3.

The question is whether the date of transfer shall be construed as Year 1 or Year 3 - whether the possession of land would construed to be handed over to the developer on ex*****on of the agreement dated in Year 1 and the transfer of property have taken place in view of the section 2(47)(v) of the Act r.w. section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in Year 1.

The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. AIT reported in (2020) 115 5 in this respect lays down that in order to attract provisions of section 53A of the Transfer Of Property Act The transferee must, in part performance of the contract, have taken possession of the property or any part thereof. The transferee (developer) must have performed or be willing to perform his part of the agreement. Further, a registered deed must be executed. It should not be a mere a license to enter the property for the purpose of carrying out development. As per the decision of The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Dr. T.K. Dayalu reported in (2011) 14 120, capital gains will arise in the year in which full control and possession of land in question is given.

Another issue raised many a times is that say in the above example, the entire consideration was paid by the buyer in Year 1 after deduction of TDS u/s 194IA, then would the proposition change and the Capital Gain or Capital Loss be assessed in Year 1 as it would be deemed that the transfer took place in year 1 itself. The answer still will not change as transaction shall be treated as transfer only when possession has been taken or retained by buyer. Since possession of property has been handed over to buyer in Year 3, transfer would be considered to have taken place in Year 3 only.

To sum up, the capital gains are offered to tax in the year in which the following conditions are satisfied -
1. The year in which the transferee has taken physical possession of the property or any part thereof.
2. The year in which transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the agreement.
3. The year in which a registered deed is executed. An agreement for sale is not a registered deed.
4. A mere a license to enter the property for the purpose of carrying out development work would not be sufficient. But, as per the decision of The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Dr. T.K. Dayalu reported in (2011) 14 120, capital gains will arise in the year in which full control and possession of property in question is given.

Thanks & Regards
Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP