“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

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 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

developed property and also with an understanding on sharing of unsold inventory between both the parties. iv. The very terms of revenue-sharing Joint Development Agreement - 37% of the total revenue from the developed property indicates the transaction is that of business in nature similar to that of developer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

M/S. Anupam Ranjan (HUF), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 54Section 54F

document to prove that the appellant had transferred to the builder the land and building without appreciating that the appellant had furnished the joint development agreement and also the agreement for transfer of the property dated 1.6.2011 which only resulted in capital gain being brought to tax for the relevant

K.Gopalakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1501/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Smt. T.V.Muthu Abirami (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 264Section 54

assessee received sale consideration of Rs.75 Lacs which was offered to tax. The Ld. AR submitted that as per the terms of Joint Development Agreement dated 14.11.2012, the flat was to be shared by other co-owners only. The Ld. AR, in the alternative, pleaded for consequential deduction ... property along with her sister and mother, earned Long-Term Capital Gains from residential house Plot No.2404 in Anna Nagar under a Joint Development Agreement. As per the agreement, the builder agreed to develop the property into a residential complex and agreed to give the owners payment of Rs.225 Lacs

Biswajit Bose, New Panvel vs. Pr CIT -1, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and order of Ld

ITA 1322/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shree Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbiswajit Bose B103, Balaji Niwas, Plot No-107-108, Sector-8, New Panvel, Panvel-410206 Pan No. Acxpb9332K ....Appellant Pr Cit-1 Thane Room No-7, 6The Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-400604 ...Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma & S.SriramFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 263

With reference to documents mentioned above we observed following facts emerged out of various orders/notice/submissions as under: i. Assessee entered into a joint development agreement with three others dated : 10-10-2012 (original agreement); ii. Assessee entered into another joint development agreement with four others dated ... purpose of developing the property, the Appellant along with three other members of the family (who were joint owners) entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 10.10.2012 with M/s Rupayan Projects Private Limited. C. Subsequently, the Appellant entered into another development agreement dated 26.12.2013 along with the said three members

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

Trans Global Power P. Ltd. in which Shri R. Muniraju was one of the directors. During the course of search, a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 11.12.2009 which was executed between the assessee and M/s. Brundavan Constructions (Developer) for a development of properties situated in Arehalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore ... decision in the case of Dr. T.K. Dayalu, 14 Taxmann.com 120 (2011) (Kar), capital gains arises at the time of execution of Joint Development Agreement, when possession of property is handed over to the Developer due to the concept of Part Performance. The judgement of the Hon'ble High Court

Parthiban Kalavathi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1131/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Parthiban Kalavathi, The Asst. Commissioner Of 74, Pidariar Koil Street, Vs. Income Tax, George Town, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Cxrpk-1062-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, In Ita

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

following two interconnected issues: I) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O in making assessment on surplus arising from Joint Development Agreement (JDA) as business profit as against the assessee treating the same under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”. II) The CIT(A) erred ... that in a nutsheel at para 10 as under: “10. In a nutshell, the following events unfolded :- The assessee entered in to a Joint Development Agreement with the builder to construct residential homes on his vacant plot of land, However,, as an afterthought, to make use of section 54F deduction

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3205/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

subsequent financial years, the depreciation for normal wear and tear needs to be allowed. The assessee further contended that it has entered into joint development agreement with M/s.Unitech Cestos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., for development of 70 acres of land and income from said project is recognized from

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3203/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3202/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3201/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

assessee had received an amount of Rs. 30 crores from Ms. IDEB Investments Private Ltd during the relevant assessment year in pursuance of Joint Development Agreement. The assessing authority found that there was Joint Development Agreement executed between the assessee and M/s. IDEB on 30th March

M/S. Reddy Structures (Private) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1305/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

respect of the said housing project, the assessee had secured the land for purposes of development under the joint development agreements. In terms of the joint development agreement, the assessee was required to deliver certain flats to the landowners. Some of the landowners approached the assessee and re- negotiated

Asst CIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Shagun Reality, Navi Mumbai

ITA 687/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 69

area retained by M/s. Maitri Associates. The Assessing Officer failed to understand the true import of the terms of Agreement for Joint Development Agreement and has incorrectly and thus, erred in making addition of 50% of the land cost (i.e. INR 3,79,43,950/-). The fact is that total

Ganigara Rekha Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 674/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.C.Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 57

land and 3 ITA No.674/Bang/2022. Smt.Ganigara Rekha Venugopal converted it into non-agricultural land). The above land was developed into sites by a joint development agreement with one M/s.Merusri Real Estate Developers Private Limited. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that she was entitled only

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

aforesaid notice u/s 133C dated 11-2-2016, the learned Income Tax Officer had telephonically called the appellant to furnish copies of the Joint Development Agreement dated 28-3-2011, relevant Power of Attorneys executed in favour of the Developer and also copies of Partnership Deed for his verification ... appellant amounting to Rs.51,74,991/-. 2.10 From the above facts, it is obvious that the Return of Incomes, audited Financial Statements, Joint Development Agreement and other relevant records of the appellant have been verified & scrutinized at following three levels before the assessment order is passed by learned

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

Shri. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

complete legal rights over the property which were the subject Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore Page 2 of 33 matter of Joint Development Agreement with M/s. Sri Ram Properties Limited resulting in-complete inaction much less any commercial activity on the said property warranting assumption of income in the manner ... learned respondent also seriously erred in not considering the various statutory documents like granting of Khata on the property, releasing the original Joint Development Agreement by the Registering Authority, continuation of the litigation over the properties which are the subject matter of Joint Development Agreement which disabled the appellant