“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, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4445/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

assessee and GHL were having profit sharing ration of 44.64% and 55.36% respectively in the said project. Since the assessee was in joint development agreement of the property “Ganga Acropolis”, proportionate addition was made in its hands also. During the course of survey proceedings, certain jottings, loose papers and whatsup ... assessee’s share in the alleged cash receipts found during survey proceedings on GHL, the assessee and GHL had entered into Joint Development Agreement for development of the land owned by assessee at P a g e | 6 ITA No. 4444, 4445, 4448 & 5779/Mum/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 782/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Road, Bengaluru on 20/07/2018. During the course of survey and post survey enquiries, it is found that the assessee has entered into Joint Development Agreement as tabulated below:- Sl. Name of JDA with Area Revenue No the Concern Sharing 01 Anushka Realty DNR 75685 sq.ft 20.5% CorporationPvt. Ltd 02 Anushka ... developed property and also with an understanding on sharing of unsold inventory between both the parties. 4. The very terms of revenue sharing joint development agreements- specific percentage of the total revenue from the developed property- indicates the transaction is that5 of business in nature similar to that of developer

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 781/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 780/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 779/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Anushka Estates, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 761/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Anushka Estates, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 760/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Road, Bengaluru on 20/07/2018. During the course of survey and post survey enquiries, it is found that the assessee has entered into Joint Development Agreement as tabulated below:- S1. No Name of the Concern JDA with Area Revenue Sharing 01 Anushka Realty DNR CorporationPvt. Ltd 75685 sq.ft 20.5% 02 Anushka ... developed property and also with an understanding on sharing of unsold inventory between both the parties. 4. The very terms of revenue sharing joint development agreements- specific percentage of the total revenue from the developed property- indicates the transaction is that5 of business in nature similar to that of developer

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Anushka Estates, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 759/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Ram Kishore Seth, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1154/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmalate Shri Ram Kishore Seth, Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir, Smt. Rama Seth), New Delhi. Nd-63, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Ejips0799P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Order : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 16.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 24Section 54Section 54FSection 68

that the assessee was changing its stand before lower authorities on the issue of deduction claimed u/s 54/54F. He brought to our notice joint development agreement and submitted that the assessee had actually sold second floor and car parking and purchased more than one property. At the time of claiming ... 54/54F. We observed that the assessee was earning rental income from three independent units from Karol Bagh and new units constructed under joint development agreement. The issue is of the claim of deduction u/s 54/54F on the sale of portion of Pitampura building, wherein the assessee had retained two portions

Nandkumar Baban Saste, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 99/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that declaration was made on account of transaction carried out during A.Y. 2014-15 when the assessee entered into joint development agreement executed on 29/01/2014 for the ancestral agricultural land ITA.No.99/PUN./ 2025 (Nandkumar Baban Saste) located at gat No. 269, Mauhje Handewadi, Hadapsar, Pune ... advisor. It is stated that ITA.No.99/PUN./ 2025 (Nandkumar Baban Saste) assessee declaration made under IDS, 2016 was purely regarding the joint development agreement entered into in A.Y. 2014-15, on which any tax liability does not arise. We note that L\d.AO has made the impugned addition based

Rajendra Rampal, Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2167/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

hence prayed to be deleted. [Relief claimed - Deletion of Addition of Rs.2,88,22,020/-]. 3. Your Appellant submits that as the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) itself has been cancelled by virtue of a Settlement executed between the Developers and Landowners so no addition can be made on that ground ... Shri Ajay Pratap Singh Rio Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh and Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, S/o Lt. Ajay Pratap Singh, had executed a Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) dated 28.08.2015 and also a General Power of Attorney dated 31.08.2015 in respect of total land measuring 0.7680 decimal in aggregate with two storied commuted

Manohar Reddy Cheruku, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1625/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1625/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Manohar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Cheruku, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aelpc8785R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 53A

that the assessee, along with Shri Ch Anand Reddy and Shri M. Sahodar Reddy (hereinafter collectively called “the landowners”), had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) dated 19.01.2016 with the developer. As per the terms of the JDA, in lieu of land measuring 676 sq. yards, the landowners were

Biswarup Samadder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1379/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Biswarup Samadder…..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 164/A, Bidhan Pally, Garia, Kol-84.. [Pan: Auqps2353G] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Haldia……………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Sanjay Bhattacharaya, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 05, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Income Tax Return Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,12,600/- & The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For Examining Issue Related To Investment In Immovable Property. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Was A Developer & Had Executed Development Agreements With Respect To Three Immovable Properties Whose Owners Were Persons Other Than The Assessee & The Agreements Were Got Registered In The Office Of Registering Authority. The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Purchase-Consideration Was Less Than Biswarup Samadder The Value Of Properties Assessed By Stamp Valuation Authority. He, Therefore, Made Addition Of Rs. 1,03,71,727/- U/S 43Ca Of The Act Treating The Difference Between Transfer-Consideration & Value Assessed By Stamp Valuation Authority

Section 250Section 270ASection 43C

submitting that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the case of the assessee as there was joint development agreement and it was just in the nature of the contract between landowners and the assessee developer wherein the landowner provided their land ... between the assessee and landowners Sri Avhishek Das and Smt. Dipalika Das and subsequently revoked by landowners. According to him, since the joint development agreement and the power of attorney has been revoked, hence no addition for under-reporting as appreciated by the Assessing Officer is justified and the penalty

Amit Kumar Verma, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6(1), Patna

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

ITA 357/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

online portal for filing of the return, the return of income could not be filed electronically. The Ld. AO further noted that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) had been executed by the assessee with Ambe Bhagwati Marketing Construction Private Limited. The Ld. AO perused the replies filed by the assessee

Essae Suhagraja Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore

ITA 592/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148A

liable to be subjected to tax in the year of sale or otherwise transfer of the stock in trade. Assessee entered into a joint development agreement with a builder in financial year 2013 – 14 as per agreement dated 2 August 2013 registered as document with

Essae Suhagraja Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

ITA 591/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Essae Suhagraja Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

ITA 590/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Roopa Jagadish, Mysuru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 972/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran &

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 55A

assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 04/03/2014. The assessee alongwith the other co-owners entered into a joint development agreement on 31/01/2008 with the builder for developing the property as multi storied apartments. It was agreed that the owners will get 37% of the constructed

Shri K.G Subbarama Setty, Bangalore vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) Bangalore, C R Building

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issues in all these four appeals isarising out of the common Joint development agreement, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. First, we take up the ITA No.963/Bang/2025 ... course of search operations u/s.132 of the Act at the residence of the assessee, several documents among which the material related to a joint development agreement with the developer, namely M/s. Renaissance Holdings and Developers Pvt. Ltd. were seized. On perusal of the seized material, it was seen that

K A Sujit Chandan, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Bengaluru.-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250