“ joint development agreement ”

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

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.

260 ITR 491 · 2003 · High Court

150

202 Taxmann 531 · 2011 · High Court

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

373 ITR 127 · 2015 · High Court

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

Potla Nageswara Rao v. DCIT

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.

365 ITR 249 · 2014 · High Court

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

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.

421 ITR 46 · 2020 · Supreme Court

14 Taxmann.com 120 · 2011 · High Court

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

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

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.

115 Taxmann.com 5 · 2020 · Supreme Court

ITA 1297/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 1296/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee was to receive 37% of the revenue arising from the sale ... rather than as a capital asset. 3. On this basis, the Assessing Officer held that the amounts received during the year under the joint development agreement, amounting to ₹13,87,39,209, represented business receipts liable to tax in the year of receipt. After allowing what he considered

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 1286/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Mathikere vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 1028/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

DCIT, CC- 2(1), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 1275/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Neha Jain, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1275/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Neha Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan:Asnpj2794B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Siddharth Toshnival राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rajnaj Agarwala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Neha Jain (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.06.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: : Shri Rajnaj Agarwala, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 45Section 69A

Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) observed that the assessee had not declared capital gain arising from an alleged Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.1,76,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act and passed reassessment order

M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

words, instead of directly purchasing land from the BFM Industries, Avani Infra purchased shares of ETPL. Subsequently, the appellant company entered into three joint development agreements with its 100% parent company, Avani Infra which are as follows: On 01-06-2007, 1st Joint Development Agreement was made where a consideration ... Timing of revelation is again important as just from FY 2012-13, appellant started earning capital gains from the said Joint Development Agreement. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that during the assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14, the Ld. AO however considered that the land transferred

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

Subbalakshmamma Pinnama, Thummalagunta, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1463/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 45

under consideration, submitted that, the assessee has reported income from long-term capital gains derived from transfer of property in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement, and said property is owned by the assessee and her son, and the assessee is only a beneficial owner, and the property entirely belongs ... return of income disclosing the income from Long Term Capital Gains derived on account of the transfer of property in pursuant to Joint Development Agreement. Further, the case of the assessee falls under Section 270A(3) of the Act, where it has been 7 Subbalakshmi Pinnama clearly stated that

Lalmuni Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 18/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 48Section 50CSection 55

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“the Ld. AO”) noted that the assessee received an amount of ₹29,40,000/- as part of the Joint Development Agreement and total value of the consideration as per Stamp Duty Value was ₹64,02,144/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO assessed the total income ... During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the appellant received an amount of Rs.29,40,000/- as part of Joint Development Agreement and total value of consideration as per Stamp Duty Value was Rs.64,02,144/- thereby attracting the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Therefore

Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1339/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Appellant 1, Old Court House Corner Tobacco House, 1St Floor, Room No.104, Kol-700001. [Pan: Aafcr4754E] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate & Nandini Sureka, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Rs.Nil. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Act & Subsequent Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued As The Assessing Officer Received Information That The Assessee Has Sold Immovable Property By Adopting Value Lower Than Stamp Valuation Authority. Accordingly, Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Was Passed By Making An Addition Of Rs.28,36,680/- U/S 43Ca Of The Act Being The Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd Difference Between Stamp Duty Valuation & Sale Consideration Of The Immovable Property.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43C

alleged difference between stamp duty valuation and sale consideration of the immovable property ignoring the fact that the assessee company entered into Joint Development Agreement with Swarna Infrastructure & Builders Private Limited and the assessee company owned the land with other 19 companies, who had appointed the developer SIBPL and grant ... owner of the land and construct the building complex thereon and to market the same for mutual benefit as evident from copy of Joint Development Agreement dated 25.06.2012. The ld. AR further submitted that as per the said Joint Development Agreement dated 25.06.2012, all land owners in aggregate shall receive

Crystal Mercantiles Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 957/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 58A

against natural justice. I.T.A. No.: 957/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Crystal Mercantiles Private Limited. 2. Your Appellant submits that the execution of Joint Development Agreement cannot be equated as a Transfer of Property according to the provisions of section 58A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and so also ... showing ‘NIL’ income. Subsequently, information was received from the DDIT (Inv.) that the assessee, along with other co-owners, had entered into a joint development agreement for transfer of land on 24.05.2013 with M/s. Vedic Reality Pvt. Ltd. as per which the assessee agreed to give possession of his portion

Shardindu Prasad Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same was eligible to levy of Capital Gains Tax in the year in which the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was entered in to. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the basic object ... purpose of joint development agreement (in between the land owner & developer) for recording of terms of the agreement and safety and security of both the parties. As such, the learned Assessing Officer has totally gone astray in realising and understanding the meaning and purpose of registered development agreement

Naveen Kumar Musinipally, Usa vs. ADIT (Int-Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly

ITA 323/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

light of provisions of sec.127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response, the assessee vide submissions dated 08.03.2022 stated that, the Joint Development Agreement [in short “JDA”] entered is not a capital asset u/sec.2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and transfer is not a transfer u/sec.2 ... assessee had also challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards computation of capital gain from transfer of property in pursuance to Joint Development Agreement [in short “JDA”] with M/s. Giridhari Homes Pvt. Ltd., on the ground that, Development Agreement with the builder M/s. Giridhari Homes

Module Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1792/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini, reported in [2017] 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC), to support his statement that whether the Joint Development Agreements were entered into for want of permissions and for the development of land, there would be no profit or gains which arose in respect ... Supreme is as follows :- Section 2(47), read with sections 45 and 48, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains -Transfer (Joint Development Agreement) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether where for want of permissions, entire transaction of development of land envisaged in Joint Development Agreement (JDA) fell through

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2316/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

criteria which need to be considered for applicability of section 194IC. The ld. AR drew our attention to the relevant clauses in the Joint Development Agreement where it has been stated that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi has acquired the leasehold right, title and interest in the said property and therefore ... clause and the consequential amendment in section 49 and introduction of section 194IC – Special provisions for computation of capital gains in case of joint development agreement Under the existing provisions of section 45, capital gain is chargeable to tax in the year in which transfer takes place except in certain

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2315/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2314/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2313/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am