← All Phrases

“joint development agreement”

Capital GainsSection 45(5A)Section 45(5A)386 judgments

The decision most relied on for joint development agreement is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on joint development agreement

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini
398 ITR 531 · 2017 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT
260 ITR 491 · 2003 · High Court
150
citing judgments

For capital gains purposes, a 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) occurs and capital gains arise in the year when possession of the property is handed over in part performance of a contract, such as a joint development agreement. This was the settled position before the specific provisions of section 45(5A) were introduced.

CIT v. T.K. Dayalu
202 Taxmann 531 · 2011 · High Court
58
citing judgments

In a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), capital gains arise for chargeability to tax when the complete control over the property is passed to the developer, with the date of such transfer of control being relevant for determining the assessment year. This includes considerations of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

CIT v. V.R. Karpagam
373 ITR 127 · 2015 · High Court
40
citing judgments

The principles for exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act apply equally to Section 54F, allowing exemption for multiple residential units received under a joint development agreement if the assessment year is prior to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 amendment.

Potla Nageswara Rao v. DCIT
365 ITR 249 · 2014 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Handing over possession of property under a Development Agreement-cum-GPA in exchange for built-up area constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, triggering capital gains tax, as it satisfies the conditions under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
421 ITR 46 · 2020 · Supreme Court
33
citing judgments

Handing over possession under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

CIT v. Dr. T. K. Dayalu
14 Taxmann.com 120 · 2011 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Capital gains arise at the time of execution of a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and handing over of possession of property to the developer, due to the concept of part performance.

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
115 Taxmann.com 5 · 2020 · Supreme Court
23
citing judgments

Granting a license to a developer for property development does not constitute 'allowing possession' under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and therefore section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act is not attracted.

Judgments citing joint development agreement

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8287/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the documents available on record. The assessee is a developer who had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the landowners. On the payment made to the landowners, the assessee deducted TDS at the rate of 1% under section 194IA

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the documents available on record. The assessee is a developer who had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the landowners. On the payment made to the landowners, the assessee deducted TDS at the rate of 1% under section 194IA

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8285/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the documents available on record. The assessee is a developer who had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the landowners. On the payment made to the landowners, the assessee deducted TDS at the rate of 1% under section 194IA

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8284/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the documents available on record. The assessee is a developer who had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the landowners. On the payment made to the landowners, the assessee deducted TDS at the rate of 1% under section 194IA

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Varun Jaisingh Asher, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 8251/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Shengde, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(x)

Income Tax Act per se exempt transaction between assessee and his relatives from any tax on transaction. The owners entered into joint development agreement on 11/08/2014. Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement was entered by tenants with 3 ITA No. 8251/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21 Varun Jaisingh Asher the builder in March

Shri. Vijay Mahantesh Trading Company, Navalgund vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Hubbali

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2414/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250Section 68

such increase in capital, the assessee submitted that its partners namely Mr. Anappa Bagi and Ms. Shivaleela S. Bagi, have entered into two Joint Development Agreements with Maxworth Reality India Private Limited and an amount of Rs. 48 lakhs (96 lacs gross) had been received during the financial year ... observed that the amounts credited in his bank account did not appear to have been received as refundable deposit under the Joint Development Agreement dated 03.08.2015. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted from the copy of the said JDA that the owners, namely the appellant along with her three sons

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

Tribunal has in the impugned order rendered a finding of fact that when the security deposit was received under the joint development agreement dated 4th April 2008, no sale took place as no conveyance was executed. Further, the land and rights in respect thereof being stock in trade ... under the Transfer of Property Act also took place in the subject Assessment Year. The impugned order holds that in terms of the joint development agreement dated 4th April, 2008, only after all the requisite permissions are obtained, would the obligation to issue a license to M/s. Skyline Mansions

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

Tribunal has in the impugned order rendered a finding of fact that when the security deposit was received under the joint development agreement dated 4th April 2008, no sale took place as no conveyance was executed. Further, the land and rights in respect thereof being stock in trade ... under the Transfer of Property Act also took place in the subject Assessment Year. The impugned order holds that in terms of the joint development agreement dated 4th April, 2008, only after all the requisite permissions are obtained, would the obligation to issue a license to M/s. Skyline Mansions

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

Tribunal has in the impugned order rendered a finding of fact that when the security deposit was received under the joint development agreement dated 4th April 2008, no sale took place as no conveyance was executed. Further, the land and rights in respect thereof being stock in trade ... under the Transfer of Property Act also took place in the subject Assessment Year. The impugned order holds that in terms of the joint development agreement dated 4th April, 2008, only after all the requisite permissions are obtained, would the obligation to issue a license to M/s. Skyline Mansions

ACIT, Chennai vs. Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

Tribunal has in the impugned order rendered a finding of fact that when the security deposit was received under the joint development agreement dated 4th April 2008, no sale took place as no conveyance was executed. Further, the land and rights in respect thereof being stock in trade ... under the Transfer of Property Act also took place in the subject Assessment Year. The impugned order holds that in terms of the joint development agreement dated 4th April, 2008, only after all the requisite permissions are obtained, would the obligation to issue a license to M/s. Skyline Mansions

ACIT, Chennai vs. Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 1639/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

Tribunal has in the impugned order rendered a finding of fact that when the security deposit was received under the joint development agreement dated 4th April 2008, no sale took place as no conveyance was executed. Further, the land and rights in respect thereof being stock in trade ... under the Transfer of Property Act also took place in the subject Assessment Year. The impugned order holds that in terms of the joint development agreement dated 4th April, 2008, only after all the requisite permissions are obtained, would the obligation to issue a license to M/s. Skyline Mansions

Mummalaneni Raghavan, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 628/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 56

hence, the proceedings are void-ab-initio. 3. On merits, the Ld.AR of appellant has mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the Joint Development Agreement entered into by the appellant with the builder was cancelled and hence the levy of short term capital gains tax by the Ld.AO, which ... point for adjudication is, whether the assessee is liable for paying capital ITA No.627 & 628/Viz/2025 Mummalaneni Raghavan gains tax in view of the Joint Development Agreement entered into by the appellant with Atha Constructions during the year under consideration. As per the information received by the department, the appellant

Mummalaneni Raghavan, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 627/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The Proceedings Are Void-Ab-Initio.

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 56

hence, the proceedings are void-ab-initio. 3. On merits, the Ld.AR of appellant has mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the Joint Development Agreement entered into by the appellant with the builder was cancelled and hence the levy of short term capital gains tax by the Ld.AO, which ... whether the assessee is liable for paying capital consideration. As per the information received by the department, the appellant had entered a Joint Development Agreement with Atha Constructions during the A.Y.2016-17 and as per the agreement, the appellant had received total amount of Rs.70,80,000/-. Since the appellant

Jagan Mohan Rao Valluru, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 469/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2009-10) Sai Sri Anusha Valluru 62-8, Flat No. 201 Kesava Residency Netaji Street, Patamata Vijayawada [Pan: Ahopv5451H] Vs. Dcit – Circle-2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.469/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2009-10) Jagan Mohan Rao Valluru Vs. Dcit – Circle-2(1) 63-1-3, Ramalayam Street Patamatalanka Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Ahopv4864A] C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr : 16.02.2026 : 27.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, न्यायिक

Sai Sri Anusha Valluru, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 468/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2009-10) Sai Sri Anusha Valluru 62-8, Flat No. 201 Kesava Residency Netaji Street, Patamata Vijayawada [Pan: Ahopv5451H] Vs. Dcit – Circle-2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.469/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2009-10) Jagan Mohan Rao Valluru Vs. Dcit – Circle-2(1) 63-1-3, Ramalayam Street Patamatalanka Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Ahopv4864A] C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr : 16.02.2026 : 27.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250(6)

narrow compass. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had, along with 17 other co-owners, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (for short

Vinod Yadav, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (3), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 398/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(ii)Section 50CSection 53A

made by the Id. AO on account of long-term capital gain arising from the property given for the Joint Development Agreement. 2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee is deriving income from pension from Bihar Vidhan Sabha and interest from SB account with bank ... however, the facts are distinguishable as in that case the substantial payments were made at the time of execution of joint development agreement. 2.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has entered into a Land Development Agreement with

Hari Narayan Gupta (HUF), Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (5), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. Rastogi &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 133Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 50CSection 53A

made by the Id. AO on account of long-term capital gain arising from the property given for the Joint Development Agreement. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is deriving income from business and is a senior citizen. During the year, the assessee filed the return ... however, the facts are distinguishable as in that case the substantial payments were made at the time of execution of joint development agreement. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has entered into a Land Development Agreement with the builder

Late Rama Kumari Munna Represented by Shri Shivayya Munna Husband Legal Heir, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

ITA 541/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250

against the facts of the case. 2. The Learned CIT(A) and the lower authorities have erred in holding that the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 18.03.2016 constituted a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the following

Ashutosh Dubey, Kanjurmarg vs. DCIT Circle-8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2215/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ashutosh Dubey, V Income Tax Officer, Tower 8, Flat No.3201, Runwal S Circle-8, Pune. Forest, Lbs Road, Kanjurmarg West, Maharashtra – 400078 Pan: Ajppd0173M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Amar Pandey (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 274(2)Section 5

bona fide and genuine without any intention of under-reporting of income, arising on account of transfer of property in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement. Since the assessee has already paid a substantial amount of tax and also filed return of income disclosing the complete income in respect

Archana Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1888/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 68

made by the Id. AO towards sundry creditors which represented the amount received as earnest money under the joint development agreement. 2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 17.10.2016, declaring total income at %12,74,220/-. The case of the assessee ... assessee replied the said questionnaire. The Id. AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has entered into an joint development agreement with M/s Combine Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and received advance of 1,10,00,000/-. According to the Id. AO the said company