“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Meserss T.C. Buildcon Private Limited, Raipur

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 173/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Biltech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (AACCB2418A) for development of 1.977 Hectares of land situated at Shankar Nagar, Raipur. As per Clause-25 of the Joint development agreement, the assessee and the developer, M/s Biltech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. were entitled to sell 29% and 71 % of flat and constructed areas including ... contention, perused the material available on record and have considerately gone through the case laws pressed for our consideration. On perusal of the Joint Development Agreement, as also observed by Ld. CIT(A) that according to the said agreement wherein the assessee company has entered into with M/s Biltech engineering

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hem Bhattad, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 37Section 40

real d in the business of real estate development during relevant year during relevant year. The assessee entered . The assessee entered into a joint development agreement dated 27.09.2012 with ‘R M Bhutter a joint development agreement dated 27.09.2012 with a joint development agreement dated 27.09.2012 with and Co. Ltd’. being

Hem Bhattad, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1934/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 37Section 40

Shri Arnesh Kumar Shakar Ex. Mla, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 6/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54F

land owned by the society in village Kansar near Chandigarh. It was also noticed by the Assessing Officer that a tripartite Joint development agreement dated 25.02.2007 was entered into between Punjabi Co-op House Building Society Ltd., M/s HASH Builders (P) Ltd., Chandigarh and M/s Tata Housing Development Company

M/S. C.K.Gupta (HUF), Mujmbai vs. CIT -17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 274/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.274/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2016-17) M/S. C.K.Gupta (Huf), 22, St. James Court, Marine Drive, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aabhg-8349-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-17(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajen Damani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Shambhu Yadav, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajen DamaniFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 54E

case as emanating from records are: The assessee is a HUF. The assessee owns a land . The assessee entered into two Joint Development Agreements with two developers viz. Regency Nirman Limited and Om Sidhivinayak Enterprises for development of two separate parcels of land. The land was developed by the developers ... agreement with two different developers for development of land. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that a perusal of the Joint Development Agreement dated 28/05/2008 with Regency Nirman Limited at page 81 of the Paper Book would show that the total area of land is 303731.72 sq. meters

Pramod Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward- 6(5), Patna

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

ITA 77/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 144Section 48Section 50C

claiming admissible deductions. However, during the relevant 2 A.Y. 2013-2014 Pramod Kumar year, the assessee jointly with his brother entered into a joint development agreement dated 19.10.2012 with AGR Estate Private Limited for construction of multi-storied building. As per the terms of the agreement, the assessee was entitled ... assessee as the notices were sent on the mail address i.e. camaitin@gmail.com The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee entered into an joint development agreement with AGR Estate Private Limited for construction of multi-storied building. However, mail address was duly mentioned in the Form No. 36 before

Bombay Footwear Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1645/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 1645@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Bombay Footwear Private Limited Deonar Village, Behind Telecom Factory, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb2162P Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR &

Section 142(1)Section 263

BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD. facts and wrong claim made by the assessee. The development agreement dated 21.09.2010 is in fact a joint development agreement between the assessee and Godrej Properties Limited. This fact is evident from the profit sharing model. As soon as land is pooled in a project developed ... principal basis. Thus, from the above covenants in the development agreement it can be safely deduced that it is not a case of joint development agreement as argued by ld. DR. 11. The contention of the Revenue is that the AO has failed to conduct enquiries before completing the assessment

Ramesh Chandna, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, 17. the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 54Section 54E

both brothers and proportionately calculating the share of the assessee in context to the share left with the assessee in furtherance of Joint Development Agreement with builder. It was submitted that the brothers had given their respective to shares for Rs. 4,53,75,000/- each but assessee received ... property at Rs.2,64,81,481/-.It was submitted that Ld.AO has failed to take into consideration,the sale deed and the Joint Development Agreement together as Ramesh Chandna 5 apart from 32.5% share in the property assessee also got entire basement and ground floor. 6.1 On the other hand

Farooq Abdulla Merchant, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

Karnataka High Court) Capital gains-Exemption under s. 54-Investment in more than one residential houses/flats Assessee entered into a joint development agreement with builder to develop her property under which builder agreed to construct and agreed to deliver 48 per cent of the super built area to the assessee

U V Buildcon (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 696/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

behalf of M/s. Jindal Bullion Ltd. With whom the appellant was going to develop the property jointly situated at Tarun Enclave. Since the joint development agreement could not get through therefore, the appellant has sold property of Tarun Enclave in the previous year relevant to assessment year ... development of property at Tarun Enclave and has permitted for mortgage of the property to M/s. Jindal Bullion Ltd. and since the joint development agreement could not get through the assessee sold property in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2018-19 and has declared a business profit/loss

Vikram Singh, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO Ward - 2(5), Noida

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6559/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmavikram Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chaman Singh, B-6 Ward-2(5), (Basement) Js Arcade, Near Noida Bikanerwala, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 65, Sector-18, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jmlps3035M

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Dass, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

filed any return of income for the relevant A.Y declaring capital gains on the consideration received towards her share (50%) as per the joint development agreement, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and after examining the assessee’s contention about the exemption u/s 54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer

Shri Hukumchand Choudhary, Indore vs. ITO (3), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

wrongly interpreted the judgement of Apex Court held in the case of Balbir Singh Maini which was decided in the context of Joint Development Agreement and the facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of the assessee. Hukumchand Choudhary vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2 – (d) That ... Balbir Singh Maini are totally different from the facts of the case of the assessee. As the former of the case of Joint Development Agreement and the particular assessee herein is an individual. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that all the relevant documents were produced before the Assessing Officer

Virender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 131

fully justified in holding that this amount of Rs. 2 Cr. had nothing to do with the transfer of land under the joint development agreement and was taxable under the head income from other sources. Reference in this regard may be made to the following case laws ... justified in holding that this amount of Rs. 2,12,81,250/- had nothing to do with the transfer of land under the joint development agreement and was taxable under the head income from other sources.” 8. The Tribunal after considering the submissions elaborately on the subject and after exhaustive

Madhu Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 395/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

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

income from Long Term Capital Gain. 3. In this case, information was received that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s. SNR Nirman India (P) Ltd on 13.01.2012 to construct Page 1 of 20 ITA No 395 of 2022 Madhu Kumar Patel Hyderabad residential flats

Kolla Gowri, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

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

ITA 1039/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Kolla Gowri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, R/O.Chennai. Chittoor. Pan : Aoepg6939E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.A. Sumitra Nandan, Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Sumitra NandanFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50DSection 53A

case are that as per the information received, it is revealed that, the appellant, as a land owner entered into a joint development agreement cum general power of attorney (JDA) vide document No.1388/2012 dated 30/04/2012 for Rs.2,48,20,000/- in favour of Sri Dhanalakshmi Constructions (Developer/ Builder with reference ... assessee had claimed that the short-term capital gain should be calculated on SRO value of the alleged land transferred pursuant to the Joint-Development Agreement. Besides that ld.AR had submitted that ld.CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the specific ground of non-transfer of land within the meaning

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(3), Hyderabad vs. Mechineni Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 56/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2015-16 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Mechineni Projects (P) Central Circle 3(3) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecp4421H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.9.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee, A Company (Formerly Known As Pbr Projects Pvt. Ltd) Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Residential & Commercial Buildings, Originally Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Admitting A Total Income Of Rs.1,16,090/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Wase Conducted In M/S. Raghuram & Trishala Group On 21.11.2017 & Warrant In The Case Of M/S. Mechineni Projects (P) Ltd I.E., The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR

Section 132Section 153A

floor. Anand Capital, Ameerpet. Hyderabad on 21.11.2017, it was replied vide question no 12 that, your company Ms. Mechineni Projects Pvt Ltd entered joint development agreement with M/s. Namishree Infratech to construct residential and com1mercial space against which your company Page 3 of 13 ITA 56 of 2021 Mechineni Projects ... Further you have stated that the company M/s Mechineni Projects P Ltd has not offered any capital gains on joint development agreement and arrived a consideration of Rs 29.72 crores adopting construction cost of Rs 2500/- of total area allotted and admitted an amount of Rs 13.72 crores as Long

Galla Ravindranath HUF, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -2, Anantapur

ITA 435/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 45Section 47(2)

value at Rs. 6,000/- per sq. yd. 4. Assessee is, therefore, aggrieved and filed this appeal stating that as per the Joint Development Agreement (JDA), the builder agreed to construct villas and give 50% thereof to the owners and the assessee was under the bonafide impression that under section

Kirthisimhan Wijeyanayake, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1854/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50DSection 54

case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 14.03.2016. It transpired that the assessee along with Mr. Sunil Wijeyanayake entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s Foundation One Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (FIPL) on 11.06.2008 for construction of residential apartments on property owned by them. The owners were ... case (supra), the matter arises under Section 54-F of IT Act. In this case also, the assessee had entered into a joint development agreement with the builder and had got more than one flat towards his share in the same location/address. Learned Single Judge of this Court had applied

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

search on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition g) based on the joint development agreement which is not an incriminating material as the same was already available with the department during the course of earlier years assessment proceedings ... which was subsequently revised on 02.08.2017 and for the assessment year 2017-18 on 04.10.2017. b) The assessee entered into a joint development agreement dated 22.06.2013 with M/s. Prestige Habitat Ventures (developer) for development of its land measuring around 93 acres situated at Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk into mixed

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250