Alapati Venkataramiah vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad on 29 March, 1965
6. It is true that Section 2(47) of the Act has been couched in the widest possible terms so as to include within the meaning of "transfer" even any arrangement which has the effect of enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property. But then Sub-clause (v) and (vi) of Section 2(47) which give wider amplification to the concept of "transfer" under the IT law were introduced in the definition only by the Finance Act, 1987 only w.e.f. 1st April, 1988, i.e., long after the assessment year in question. Prior to the insertion of the above two sub-clauses, the expression "transfer" had a restricted meaning and the interpretation given to the expression "transfer" by the apex Court in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT was holding the field. As per the said interpretation, mere delivery of possession of immovable property could not by itself be treated as equivalent to conveyance of immovable property and title to immovable property could not pass to the transferee till a deed of conveyance was duly executed and registered. Similarly, in the case of "house property" falling under Section 22 of the Act, a person in possession under an agreement falling under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act may be an owner within the meaning of Clause (iiia) of Section 27 of the Act after the introduction of the said clause w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 by the Finance Act, 1987. But until the insertion of the said clause, owner could only be a person satisfying the requirements of an owner under the common law, that is, a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after due compliance with the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act, etc.