← 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

Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt Ltd., Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 167/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

residence of Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim, documents belonging to M/S Emirates Hindustan Builders & Developers have been seized. The seized documents included a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 19.04.2017, as per which, one Mr. P B Ahammed and Mr. Thouseef PA as the first party, being the owner of the land measuring

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 271/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

addition of Rs.21,82,000/- on account of undisclosed investments made in cash out of the total payment made in connection with the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 06.12.2013 for total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 270/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

addition of Rs.21,82,000/- on account of undisclosed investments made in cash out of the total payment made in connection with the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 06.12.2013 for total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

addition of Rs.21,82,000/- on account of undisclosed investments made in cash out of the total payment made in connection with the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 06.12.2013 for total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 268/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

addition of Rs.21,82,000/- on account of undisclosed investments made in cash out of the total payment made in connection with the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 06.12.2013 for total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/-. The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim

Balasundaram Mahalakshmi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1411/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1411/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ms. Balasundaram Mahalakshmi Dcit बनाम/ 216, Atd Road, Race Course, Non-Corporate Circle-4 Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiopm-6371-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

deduction u/s 54F for Rs.569.91 Lacs. Upon examination, it was noted that the assessee and three of her family members entered into a joint development agreement (JDA) with M/s Srivari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (SIPL) and impugned deduction was claimed on the share of developed property received by the assessee

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Tube Investments 22.06.2010 India Ltd. and EID Parry India Ltd., in favour of M/s. Parry Infrastructure Co Pvt Ltd (the appellant) 2 Joint Development Agreement 24.11.2010 3 Supplementary Agreement 04.03.2011 4 Amendment Agreement 16.09.2011 5 Agreement of Sale by and between M/s. 23.01.2010 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance ... raises the question as to why these payments were being made prior to the signing of the Joint Development Agreement (JDA). It was contended by Ld.Counsel that these parties were not interested in joining the JDA and they wanted their money to be paid before the project was initiated

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Gupta C K, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-17(1) Gupta C K O/O The Government Of India 21, K. T. Building, O/O The Dy. Cit Cirr 17(1), Devji Ratansey Marg, Masjid Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Room No. 117, Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Rajen DamaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 250Section 50DSection 50ESection 54E

which was in the balance sheet shown as ‘capital asset’. The said land was then converted to non agricultural land on signing the Joint Development Agreement (JDA for short) vide order dated 25.05.2011 and continued to be shown as ‘capital asset’ and not ‘stock in trade’. Further, the assessee contends ... isolation. While it does appear that the appellants-assessees had purchased the subject land on 30.07.2007, and had entered into a joint development agreement on the very next day i.e. on 31.07.2007, the question 8 ACIT vs. Gupta C K which necessitates examination is whether that, by itself, would reflect

Myadam Kishan Rao Charitable Trust, Hyderabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/HYD/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 34

Indian Trust Act, 1886 from City Civil Court, Secunderabad, vide order dt. 30-11-2016 for entering into a joint development agreement for development of the property and sale. The City Civil Court issued order and allowed the appellant to develop the existing land at Maredpally and utilization of sale ... proceeds for the construction of hospital on the leased premises at Nandiwanaparthy village. In pursuance to the given order, the appellant entered into Joint Development Agreement on 16- 08-2018 with M/s. Trishala Infratech for the development of the property as per the terms and conditions of the agreement

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni vs. T Rama Subba Reddy, Adoni

ITA 1133/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

this context it is important to f draw the attention of Hon'ble ITAT towards the Page.2 and point/schedule C of the Joint development agreement between the assessee and developer which is reproduced as under : "Whereas the FIRST PARTY/OWNER has obtained the conversion of the agricultural land bearing survey No.9 ... assessment / reassessment / recomputation done pursuant to the direction of the Learned PCIT. Further it was submitted that as per the clause of the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) entered between the assessee and M/s. Canopy Dwellings Private Limited, there is no obligation on the assessee to carryout or incur any expenditure

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Kavya Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

land portion and short-term capital gain for built-up area, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement in AY 2010-11 and offered short-term capital gain on the portion of land transferred to the builder, in exchange of the built ... Shri Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards part of security deposit paid for land development, as per joint development agreement between the parties. Further, the jewellery was returned to Syed Mohammed Aslam and both the parties have agreed to retain the same with assessee

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Jhansi Rani Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 694/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

land portion and short-term capital gain for built-up area, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement in AY 2010-11 and offered short-term capital gain on the portion of land transferred to the builder, in exchange of the built ... Shri Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards part of security deposit paid for land development, as per joint development agreement between the parties. Further, the jewellery was returned to Syed Mohammed Aslam and both the parties have agreed to retain the same with assessee

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Tara Chand Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 692/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

land portion and short-term capital gain for built-up area, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement in AY 2010-11 and offered short-term capital gain on the portion of land transferred to the builder, in exchange of the built ... Shri Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards part of security deposit paid for land development, as per joint development agreement between the parties. Further, the jewellery was returned to Syed Mohammed Aslam and both the parties have agreed to retain the same with assessee

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 690/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

land portion and short-term capital gain for built-up area, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement in AY 2010-11 and offered short-term capital gain on the portion of land transferred to the builder, in exchange of the built ... Shri Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards part of security deposit paid for land development, as per joint development agreement between the parties. Further, the jewellery was returned to Syed Mohammed Aslam and both the parties have agreed to retain the same with assessee

Tara Chand Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 646/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

land portion and short-term capital gain for built-up area, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement in AY 2010-11 and offered short-term capital gain on the portion of land transferred to the builder, in exchange of the built ... Shri Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards part of security deposit paid for land development, as per joint development agreement between the parties. Further, the jewellery was returned to Syed Mohammed Aslam and both the parties have agreed to retain the same with assessee

Kavya Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 642/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

land portion and short-term capital gain for built-up area, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement in AY 2010-11 and offered short-term capital gain on the portion of land transferred to the builder, in exchange of the built ... Shri Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards part of security deposit paid for land development, as per joint development agreement between the parties. Further, the jewellery was returned to Syed Mohammed Aslam and both the parties have agreed to retain the same with assessee

Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

land portion and short-term capital gain for built-up area, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement in AY 2010-11 and offered short-term capital gain on the portion of land transferred to the builder, in exchange of the built ... Shri Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards part of security deposit paid for land development, as per joint development agreement between the parties. Further, the jewellery was returned to Syed Mohammed Aslam and both the parties have agreed to retain the same with assessee

Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 637/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

land portion and short-term capital gain for built-up area, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement in AY 2010-11 and offered short-term capital gain on the portion of land transferred to the builder, in exchange of the built ... Shri Syed Mohammed Aslam, Managing Director of M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards part of security deposit paid for land development, as per joint development agreement between the parties. Further, the jewellery was returned to Syed Mohammed Aslam and both the parties have agreed to retain the same with assessee

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 453/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

dated 09.01.2021. On 13th September 2019 of the year 2019-20 assessee has entered into one 3 Sanjay Kumar Singh, AY: 2020-21. Joint Development Agreement with Smt Sefali Majhi PAN CODPM0165H2, Tilak Majhi PAN FOUPM8222R, Shiva Majhi PAN FOUPM8236K for development of total 8 Cottahs 2 chittaks land situated ... Nayabad, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata 700099 along with 100 Sq. ft. structure on the said land. The stamp duty value of such Joint Development Agreement has been determined at Rs.1,46,53,372/- plus Rs. 30,000/-. This development agreement has been entered for construction of new building

Subroto Saha, Indidual, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 248/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Assessing Officer was received information through JCIT (OSD), I & CI, Kolkata that the assessee along with other 10 parties had made a Joint Development Agreement with M/s. K.K. Realstates for development of premises for consideration of Rs. 4,70,00,000/-. The total stamp duty value was determined