“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

R. Jayanna HUF, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 986/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 54F

transfer of land under JDA. 3. The necessary facts are that the assessee, along with other co- owners, entered into a joint development agreement with M/s Ecsatsy Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 8.2.2013. According to the AO, such agreement amounts to the transfer of property within the meaning of the provisions ... learned AR before us did not agitate the issue with respect to the transfer of property by virtue of the joint development agreement with the party namely, M/s Ecsatsy Projects Pvt. Ltd. stated above. However, the learned AR made a limited prayer for allowing the deduction under section

Shree Sai Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 4616/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

invoked section 56(2)(x) and made an addition of ₹45,00,000/-. Further, upon examining the Joint Development Agreement (JDA), he held that though the assessee disclosed only ₹3,00,00,000/- as sale consideration, the stamp valuation was ₹9,04,16,000/-. Treating the difference

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 254(1)Section 45(4)Section 48

land actually valuing at Rs.25.00 lakhs at an increased value of Rs.8.00 crores as their contribution to Kanha& Co. On termination of joint development agreement and on dissolution of firm, the assessee has relinquished their right being a partner of the firm and consideration thereof has acquired the land, which

Vikash Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 243/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Going Through The Petition, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The 2 Vikash Kumar Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with a developer during the Financial Year 2015–16. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income

Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 2137/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Balusamy, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234Section 251Section 53A

which the Sale Deed was executed with the buyers of the flats. The assessee further submitted that he had not entered into any joint development agreement with the builder. The assessee also disputed the handing over of possession. 6. The Ld.CIT has not accepted the case of the assessee that

Devi Dayal, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

have A.Y.2008-09 9 been granted to the other side, rather only a licence was given for entering to land for achieving of the Joint Development Agreement. The sum of Rs.5 Crores paid to the first party in assessee alongwith co-owners was not towards purchase consideration, rather ... have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The solitary issue before us is whether on entrance of a Joint Development Agreement, would it be construed that assessee has transferred his capital rights in the land which would result in any capital gain for assessment

Shantha Alias Shanthamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 153C

accepting the contention of the Appellant by adding the capital gain on an estimation basis in the year under consideration for the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) entered in the years 2008-09 and 2012-13. There has been erroneous computation of Capital Gain by Learned AO. 7. Incorrect Year ... electronic records stored in a hard disk marked A/T1/132/01, which clearly contained material directly related to the assessee, Mrs. Shantha. These materials included Joint Development Agreements (JDAs) and supporting papers for projects such as the SJR Palazza City, Premero Project, and Aditya Tussar Project. The seized documents revealed significant income

South Kanara Agriculturists Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd., Mangaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Mangalore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A. Shiva Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 50C

that that there is no transfer of land to M/s MA Smart Developers Private Limited as an outright sale rather than a joint development agreement and erroneously provisions of section 50C of the Act were invoked. It is a joint development agreement between the assessee and the promoters ... crores as initial non- refundable deposit and 30% share in the built-up area to be constructed. The assessee has not disclosed the joint development agreement while filing the return of income for the reason that it has been challenged by some of the members of the society before

ACIT-27(1), Mumbai vs. Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 1897/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. &

Section 250

addition based on incorrect understanding of facts. 7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee has entered into joint development agreement with M/s Vidya Vihar Container Ltd. As per the agreement, the assessee gets certain number of flats and it is an admitted fact that

ACIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 1896/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. &

Section 250

Renu Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 672/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

income tax act 1961 to the appellant-assessee in respect of escaped income for capital gain accrued on account of Joint Development Agreement (hereinafter referred as JDA) entered with Aparna Architect and Engicons Pvt Ltd, Patna. As per the JDA, the appellant-assessee was supposed to hand over possession ... transfer of the Land. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) mentioned in his order that in the instant case, the date of signing the Joint Development Agreement was 5th December, 2015. The insertion of section 45(5A) vide Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1st April, 2018. As the appellant is not covered

Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.266/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

From the information available with the Department, it was noticed that assessee is entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s. Bhagawahti Constructions vide document No. 3663/2012 dated 17.10.2012 by transferring his rights of 67% share of the schedule land in favour of M/s. Bhagawahti Constructions in consideration ... flats in F.Y. 2016-17 i.e., within the period of three years from the date of transfer of rights in lieu of the Joint Development Agreement, for a consideration of Rs.41,07,000/-. Ld. AO considering the assessee has not filed the development agreement denied the Page. No 2 I.T.A.No

Murahari Devabathini, Secunderabad vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 626/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.626/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Murahari Devabathini Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad (International Taxation)-2 Pan:Aqrpd7616J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ram Mohan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Schin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ram Mohan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Schin Kumar, Sr.AR

Section 148Section 194ISection 69

07/07/2015 through three cheques and therefore, the credibility of the unregistered agreement is doubtful on this very fact. Further, there was a joint development agreement between the owners and the developer dated 24/11/2004. Thereafter, a supplementary agreement was also entered into on 2nd April, 2012 whereby the property under

Dasa Shetty Kantha, Bangalore vs. ACIT Circle 6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 299/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Hari Pd. Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT

Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

materials available on record. The primary issue raised before us relates to the addition of long-term capital gains on account of the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) entered between the assessee and M/s Vaashu Structure Pvt. Ltd. (Builder) in respect of two parcels of land situated at Survey No. 16/1

Dasa Shetty Kantha, Bangalore vs. ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1926/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Hari Pd. Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT

Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam vs. Thomas Chandy, Kanjirapally

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 243/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Public Library Buiulding, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 [Pan: Adzpc3009P] Vs. Thomas Chandy .......... Respondent Karimpanal Post, Post Box No. Vizhikithode, Kanjirpally 686507 Appellant By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Krishnan, CA

Section 148Section 2(47)

attorney executed in favour of the developer does allow possession of the property for the purpose of carrying out the project. The joint development agreement entered into with the developer on 09.01.2012 was not a registered one. Therefore, there was no transfer within the meaning of provisions of section ... therefore, the question of taxability of capital gain does not arise. It is further submitted that the joint development agreement entered into by the appellant with the developer was not registered. Only the power of attorney was registered. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court

Jugender Reddy Ananthula, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1342/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 234ASection 3Section 4

voluntarily filed his return of income on 28.09.2016, wherein he had offered the capital gains on the transfer of land as per the “Joint Development Agreement” (JDA) 10 Jugender Reddy Ananthula. entered into with M/s. Mahanagar Homes Pvt. Ltd. dated 07.02.2013, declaring an income

Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 112Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 54FSection 69A

M/S Alukkas Realtors India Pvt Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ACIT Circle 1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 458/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Alukkas Realtors India Private Limited .......... Appellant Jos Alukkas Tower, Ikkanda Warrier Road, Thrissur, Trichur-680001, Kerala. Pan: Aagca7352N Vs. Acit .......... Respondent\ Circle-1(1), Trisuur. Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 145

appellant and there were no circumstances warranting rejection of books of accounts. It is further contended that in the absence of any Joint Development Agreement between the land owner and the appellant company, it is only a construction agreement between the appellant and the prospective buyer. 7. On the other

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Netai Bhadra, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2386/KOL/2024[2020]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

response from the appellant-assesee during the course of assessment proceedings. In the appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed documents and joint development agreements with land owners showing that the assessee was the developer and entered into various joint developments agreements for development of their lands. Therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals ... ownership does not rest with the developer and the provisions of section 56Z(2)(x) do not apply to the assessee. The joint development agreement filed by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings itself is not sufficient to delete the addition and the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not given