Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member. - The appeals by different assessees and cross appeals by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(A)-I, Hyderabad.

2. First we will take up the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos. 208 to 211/Hyd./2011 and Revenue appeals 328 to 331/Hyd./2011 wherein the issue involved are inter-related.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao and remaining three co-owners referred to above had specified shares in immovable property land admeasuring 11 acres 33 guntas vide Sy. No. 1, 2, 3, 9(P), 10(P), 11, 12, 13, 14 in Pokkalwada Village, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad which was the subject-matter of the Development Agreement. The extent of owner share in land as enumerated in the table given below:

4. There was a search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 9-10-2007 at the residential premises of the co-owners. In response to notice under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the co-owners submitted returns of income as submitted originally. The co-owners did not disclose any income prior to the date of search as the Development Agreement to develop the property was executed on 11-5-2005. Therefore, the Development Agreement became the subject-matter of post search proceedings to examine the liability of the capital gains of the co-owners.

5. The Development Agreement which was entered into on 11-5-2005 for development of the land admeasuring 11 acres 33 guntas with M/s. Ambience Properties Ltd. The co-owners were to get 45 per cent of the property for surrendering the property and the balance of 55 per cent of the land was in favour of the developers. The developers had to develop the land as well as construct dwelling units on the land. The terms of the Development Agreement was governed by what had been stated in the Development Agreement executed on 11-5-2005. The Assessing Officer held that the entire capital gain accrues on the date of execution of Development Agreement i.e., 11-5-2005, although he noted that the permission from HUDA was obtained on 17-9-2006. The Assessing Officer computed the capital gains on transfer of the land and also the future receipt of constructed portion. However, the CIT(A) restricted the same to value of the built up area and developed land to which the assessees were entitled. The Assessing Officer at para 1.12(1) held that the consideration for plot No. 56 admeasuring 688 sq. yards was Rs. 55,04,000 which was Rs. 8,000 per square yard. Since the area of land to which the assessees were entitled to was 15,106 sq.y. the consideration was computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 12,08,48,000 (15,106 × Rs. 8,000). The assessees were entitled to 31 flats admeasuring about 1,13,295 sq. ft. The Assessing Officer adopted the cost of construction at Rs. 1,162 per sq. ft. and computed the consideration at Rs. 13,16,48,790. The Assessing Officer in coming to conclusion that the date of transfer is 11-5-2005 when the Development Agreement was executed relied on the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad "A" Bench in the case of Smt. Shantha Vidya Sagar Annam v. ITO in I.T. Appeal No. 885/Hyd./2003 wherein it was categorically held that the date of Development Agreement is the date of transfer for computing capital gain of the transfer of property.

6. Further, the Assessing Officer computed the capital gain in respect of the transfer of 12 acres of land which would be received by the assesse