“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meena Kovoor, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.223/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Meena Kovoor Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 4(1) Pan:Blhpk5744G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 156Section 50

brief, are that the assessee is one of the legal heirs of Sri Late K. Laxman Rao, who has entered into a joint development agreement on 4.12.2010 for a consideration of Rs.2,37,68,000/-. The assessee has not declared Income under head Capital gains in Page

Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle 1(2), Blr, Bangalore

ITA 379/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan &For Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

arisen mainly due to the re-computation of Capital gains on sale of land at Poojanahalli and the tax on Joint development agreement of the Property on Infantry Road. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the learned A.O. had called for various details and particulars. The assessee furnished

Vidyavathi Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 295/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

therefore does not deserve any adjudication. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] argued that the assessee has entered into a Joint Development agreement on 21/7/2008 and has claimed deduction U/s. 54 of the Act for extinguishing rights on the 40% share of the land given ... submitted that the Tribunal in the first round of appeal has allowed deduction U/s. 54 of the Act based on the date of Joint Development Agreement. The Ld AR further submitted an alternative plea that the UDS of land should be considered as Long Term, and shall be bifurcated from

Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 292/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

Avijit Mondal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-52(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1345/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 147Section 249Section 250

received salary from Central Government and his case was opened as per the AIR information that the transacting parties have executed a Joint Development Agreement with developer. After losing the battle before the AO, the appellant preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts

ACIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bombay Footwear Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-14(1)(2), Bombay Footwear Private Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Limited, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deonar Village, Behind Telecom Mumbai-400020. Factory, Deonar, Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Aaacb 2162 P Appellant Respondent : None Assessee By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 21/05/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 164Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

ignoring the fact that the assessee has entered into a Act was quashed ignoring the fact that the assessee has entered into a joint development agreement by opting to revenue sharing formula to joint development agreement by opting to revenue sharing formula to joint development agreement by opting to revenue

Arun Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 355/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Arun Kumar Jain, Vs Acit, B-1, Green Park Extn., Circle-61(1), New Delhi – 110 016. New Delhi. Pan: Aafpj7509J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shivang Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2024

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vasavi Pratap Chand, 398 ITR 316 (Del), to support the contention that in case of Joint Development Agreement, the owner of the land parts with undivided interest over the land in favour of the builder and receives agreed portion of the built ... jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vasavi Pratap Chand, (supra), wherein it is held that in case of Joint Development Agreement, the owner of the land parts with undivided interest over the land in favour of the builder and receives agreed portion of the built

Sri Buddhadeb Samadder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1356/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sri Buddhadeb Samadder….….…………............…...……………....Appellant 49/1B, Tollygunge Road, Kalighat, Kolkata-700026. [Pan: Bpbps5750L] Vs. Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arya Das, Adv. & Anibarya Das, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T. Act Dated 21.12.2018 By I.T.0 Ward 29(3)/ Kolkata & Subsequently Confirmed By The Ld. C.I.T (Appeal) Dated 15/09/2023 Are Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2 For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. A.O As Well As The Ld. Appellate Authority Was Wrong In Making Addition Of Rs. 55,81,590/- To The Income Of The Appellant Being One Of The Land-Owners Even Though

Section 143(3)Section 250

outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has owned immovable property. The assessee entered into a joint development agreement with the developer M/s R. K. Construction. That after the development/construction of the property, two flats i.e flat no.1A in the first floor and flat no.2B

Penupetruni Chinna Rao, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 401/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C(1)Section 54Section 54B

part of the deduction claimed by the petitioner u/s 54 of the Act. The said capital gain and deduction arose out of a Joint Development Agreement with one M/s. Fourcee Housing ["Builder"]. During the course of assessment, the petitioner was represented by one Shri. R. Sundar, FCA and the petitioner

Aranyak Developers Pravate Ltd., Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur

ITA 662/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 661 & 662/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Aranyak Developers Private Limited,….…….Appellant B-80, Sector-2A, Bipin Chandra Pal Sarani, Bidhan Nagar, Durgapur, Burdwan-713212, West Bengal [Pan:Aajca5219K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,….Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 19Th, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

Brief facts relevant to the issue are that the assessee is a promoter and developer of Real Estate. The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement with land owners for development of a plot of land by way of construction of residential flats and sale thereof. As per the Joint

Aranyak Developers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur.

ITA 661/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Section 147Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

Hari Narayan Meena, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 2(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 56/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Which Was Being Handled By The Earlier Authorized Representative & The Information & Details Of The Case Had Been Provided To The Assessee Recently Only.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)

Section 143(3)

developer of the property. JDA also includes the taxpayer as the owner of the land. Taxpayer is one of the party to the Joint Development Agreement, since he has contributed land. In some instances the assessee would also be eligible for a flat or two depending on the facts

DCIT -26(1), Mumbai vs. Shreyas Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR)

Section 2(47)(v)

said plot of land to be in nature of ‘capital asset’, the levy of capital gains tax stood triggered upon execution of Joint Development Agreement (herein ITA Ns. 2404/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Shreyas Builders after ‘JDA’) during the relevant year, in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income ... deed dated 18.05.2012. The AO accordingly held that, the entire sequence of events clearly showed that, the transaction was in the nature of joint development agreement and that, upon execution of the same, the assessee had transferred the development rights held in the land, which was a capital asset held/owned/possessed

Chanderlal Bulchand Ambwani, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2017-18 Rameshlal Bullchand Ambwani Pr.Cit-3 A-71, Gayatri Bhavan Vs Ahmedabad. New Bunglow Area Patia Road, Kubernagar Ahmedabad. Pan : Abipa 4517 D Assessment Year :2017-18 Chanderlal Bulchand Ambwani Pr.Cit-3 B-120, Nr.Arya Samaj Mandir Vs Ahmedabad. Kubernagar, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatpa 1376 J

For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263oSection 54F

reveals that the error noted by him in the assessment order was with respect to the AO accepting the terms of the revised Joint Development agreement entered into by the assessee with a company relating to consideration for transferring land to the company, which as per the Ld.PCIT ... perusal of the assessment records he noted that the assessee along with his brother (other assessee before us) had entered into a joint development agreement (“JDA”) with their own company viz. Gayari Infrastructure Ltd. (“GIL”) wherein they were directors and which ITA No.196/Ahd/2022 & 3 was engaged in development of real

Shri Rameshlal Bullchand Ambwani, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 196/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263oSection 54F

ITO Corporate Ward 4 (3), Chennai vs. M/S Kali Hotels Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 850/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.849/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Kali Infra Pvt. Ltd., 202, Prince Centre, Corporate Ward-4(3), 709 & 710, Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aaeck 9409 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 68

assessee has not received any ‘share application money’ in cash, but has brought in certain assets of the shareholders in lieu of Joint Development Agreement proposed to be entered into between the assessee and the shareholders by ITA Nos.849 & 850/Chny/2018 :: 3 :: passing necessary entries in the books of accounts ... developments thereon, which belongs to the Director of the company on the ground that the assessee is going to enter into the Joint Development Agreement for development of property. Further, while bringing the value of the asset into the books of accounts, the assessee has passed journal entries by debiting

ITO Corporate Ward 4 (3), Chennai vs. M/S Kali Infra Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 849/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eta Star Infopark, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal preferred by revenue is dismissed

ITA 936/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Eta Star Infopark, No. 501, 502, The Deputy North Block Front Commissioner Of Wing, V Floor, Income Tax, Manipal Centre, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dickenson Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 042. Pan: Aacfe6010C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

setting aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to tax the property obtained by the assessee from the joint development agreement dated 28.03.2011 as an adventure in the nature of trade. The order under section 143(3) read with section ... passed treating the profit earned by the assessee from joint development agreement dated 28.03.2011 under the head "business income" instead of long-term capital gains. 4. Thereafter the Coordinate Bench by an under an order dated 02.09.2022 set aside the said revisional order passed by the Ld.PCIT holding the income

K P Muhammed Ali, Calicut vs. ITO ( International Taxation), Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

grounds, agitates, as was also the common ground before us, the assessment of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the execution of a joint development agreement (JDA) (PB pgs. 88 - 116) and general power of attorney (GPA/PB pgs. 117-132) by the assessee with one, M/s. Plasma Developers Ltd., Bangalore ... proceed by enlisting the respective cases, i.e., excluding the quantification aspect, as under: Assessee’s case: a). Possession given as per the Joint Development Agreement was not absolute possession and constituted only a "License" to enter upon the property for the purpose of development in terms

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chittoor vs. G Vijayasimha Reddy, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 376/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Y V Bhanu NarayanFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 2(13)Section 54F

that the assessee is the owner of land and he has transferred the same to the developer, M/s Shriram Properties Ltd under a Joint Development Agreement. It is a fact that the assessee has not carried on any venture or business activity by so transferring the land. On the contrary ... Revenue and the MCQ replies given by the Revenue in the context of Section 45(5A) of the Act under the heading Joint Development Agreement. The said circular and the MCQ appended thereto provides as under : Joint Development Agreements (JDA) Taxability under Section 45(5A) • Taxability of Joint Development Agreements