SRI HANUMANTHIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

ITA 205/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 March 2022AY 2009-1012 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the possession given to the builder under the JDA was permissive and not 'legal possession' as contemplated under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable, and capital gains could not be assessed.

What were the facts?

The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with a builder to develop his land. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment to tax capital gains, considering the JDA as a transfer of asset. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, directing recomputation of capital gains based on a reduced land area.

What were the issues?

Whether the execution of a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constitutes a 'transfer' of an asset under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, and if the possession granted to the developer qualifies under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(47)(v),Section 53A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Hearing: 02.02.2022Pronounced: 30.03.2022

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-7, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2009-10. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following issues:- a) Validity of reopening of assessment b) Validity of assessing long term capital gain upon entering Joint Development Agreement (JDA). Sri Hanumanthiah, Bangalore At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. did not press grounds relating to validity of reopening of assessment. Accordingly, those ground are dismissed as not pressed.

2.

The facts relating to the case are state

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(47)(v)

All 331 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47)(v) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →