{
  "id": 12309671,
  "title": "Man gets flats under builder deal, transfers 5 to wife; gets Rs 4.14cr tax notice",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/06/man-gets-flats-under-builder-deal-transfers-5-to-wife-gets-rs-4-14cr",
  "topic": "finance",
  "section": "Finance & Markets",
  "published": "2026-10-06T04:48:33.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Times of India",
    "slug": "times-of-india",
    "url": "https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/man-enters-jda-for-land-gets-6-flats-from-builder-and-transfers-5-to-wife-but-gets-tax-notice-itat-delhi-deletes-rs-4-14-crore-additions-after-finding-no-stock-in-trade-conversion-or-sale/articleshow/134708592.cms"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In a recent case before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Delhi, a taxpayer was able to have tax additions amounting to Rs 4.14 crore removed from their assessment. The taxpayer had entered into a joint development agreement with a builder and received six flats in return. The taxpayer then transferred five of those flats to their wife. The Income Tax department had treated this arrangement as conversion of land into stock-in-trade and subsequent transfer as a sale resulting in business income. However, the ITAT ruled that the nature of the joint development agreement did not automatically change the character of the land as a capital asset. The tribunal found that the taxpayer was not in the real estate business and there was no evidence to support the claim that the land had been converted into a stock-in-trade. Additionally, the transfer of the flats to the wife, without any actual consideration or transaction, was ruled to not constitute a sale for tax purposes. The ITAT stated that the taxpayer's argument was supported by previous ITAT decisions, which found that the substance and supporting evidence of a property transaction must be considered rather than just relying on the language used in the agreement.",
  "summary": "The assessing officer made two major additions in this case. The first, Rs 1,93,78,293, was treated as long-term capital gains on the ground that the man had converted a capital asset into stock-in-trade. The second, of Rs 2,20,98,985, was treated as business income arising from the alleged sale of that stock-in-trade.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}