“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

Vinaya Abhijit Gajendragadkar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 586/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.586 & 585/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 144Section 250

question is regarding the sale of immovable property held by the assessee and other 16 co-owners. It was submitted that the Joint Development Agreement was entered on 29.05.2007 and advance was paid through cash and cheque modes. Thereafter, Confirmation Deed was firstly entered on 30.11.2010 and then Revised Joint ... given in the month of July 2011. He also submitted that on 29.09.2013 the Conveyance Deed was finally executed after the completion of Joint Development Agreement. The consideration received by the assessee and other co-owners was Rs.4,65,23,384/- whereas the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority

Vinaya Abhijit Gajendragadkar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 585/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.586 & 585/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 144Section 250

Gokhale Constructions, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Pune

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

ITA 1372/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 45

section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for not deducting tax u/s 194(IC) in respect of payments made under various Joint Development agreements without appreciating that the provisions of Section 194(IC) were not applicable. 2. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts ... deducting tax u/s 194(IC) in respect of payments made under the various Joint Development agreements without appreciating that provisions of Section 1941C were applicable to any sum by way of consideration within the meaning of the respective agreements and will not apply to amounts paid or credited before falling

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru vs. Nalapad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bengaluru

ITA 1959/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Respondent: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R

Section 153C

conducted in the case of M/s. Brigade Enterprise Ltd. on 02.11.2017. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents in the form of Joint Development Agreements (JDAs), sale deeds etc, were found and seized. The A.O. of the searched person observed that these documents were pertaining to the present assessees ... considered as sale as the assessee has transferred the right on the property to M/s Brigade enterprises Itd by entering into a Joint Development Agreement. Thus the ownership of the property has witnessed a change. In turn, the assessee firm has received a completed building with all necessary approval

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru vs. Nalapad Properties, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1958/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 153CSection 45(2)

conducted in the case of M/s. Brigade Enterprise Ltd. on 02.11.2017. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents in the form of Joint Development Agreements (JDAs), sale deeds etc, were found and seized. The A.O. of the searched person observed that these documents were pertaining to the present assessees ... fact that the assessee has converted the capital asset into stock in trade in assessment year 2008-09 and thereafter entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s. Brigade Enterprise Ltd. We further observe that it is also an admitted position of fact that the assessee

Shardha Devi, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Patna

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

ITA 411/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 45Section 48

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) worked out as Rs. 70,07,715/-. The LTCG has been worked out on the basis of Joint Development Agreement entered into by the assessee. Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. AO, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) and there also the assessee ... cent physically handicapped. 6. For that the A.O. has made addition of long term capital gain, on account of entering into a joint development agreement, purely on hypothetical assumptions. It is a settled law that income tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income and therefore, the addition of LTCG made

Shailesh Thaksen Bankhele (Legal Heir of Late. Thaksen Sopan Bankhele), Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(2), Pune

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

ITA 475/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.475/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shailesh Thaksen Bankhele V The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Thaksen S Ward-10(2), Pune. Sopan Bankhele), Sai Namdeo Park, Flat No.12 B-Ii, Near Mhadha Housing Society, Morwadi, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Agfpb8295D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 196, Ludhiana 23.02.2024For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 250o

considering the Capital Gain for AY 2011-12. 4. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that by executing the joint development agreement, mere license to construct was given and no possession of the land was handed over. The Land Possession will be handed over on receipt

Balasaheb Popatrao Phadol, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) Nashik, Nashik

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

ITA 891/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Balasaheb Popatrao Phadol, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Nashik. Vaishnav Niwas, Phadol Mala, At Post Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Apipp8834L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. P. Dhaware (Virtual) Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “1. The Development Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2012-13 & Supplementary Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2013-14. No Sale Of Flats In The Year Of Assessment Order. Only Development Agreement Was Not Transfer U/S 2(47). Commencement Certificate Was Received In The Assessment Year 2013-2014.”

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Dhaware (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C

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

/NFAC dismissed the appeal by observing as under :- “7.1 The contentions of the assessee has been considered as per first joint development agreement which is duly registered, the assessee received cash and 22 Flats. In the supplementary agreement filed by the appellant, it is seen that the flats construction

Subhash Chand Dhingra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Cir Int Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1184/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Rachesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rini Handa, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(1)

acquired capital asset in question, it has already come on record that the assessee had earlier demolished the old construction followed by the joint development agreement with the developer in the A.Y. 2010-11. 5 Subhash Chand Dhingra It is further noticed that all this followed yet another agreement/sale dated

Skyline Mansions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the cross appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3728/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 40

possession of land and leasehold right was with SGH, both the assessee and SGH agreed to jointly develop the land. Accordingly a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was entered on 04-04-2008 between the assessee and SGH. Accordingly, the SGH granted development rights to the assessee company ... rights from SGH. It is not the case that the assessee had granted such rights to SGH. It was further submitted that the Joint development agreement was examined by the AO of SGH in its assessment proceedings, since the AO took the view that the amount received

Skyline Mansions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the cross appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3727/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 40

DCIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. B Raheja Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2677/MUM/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(ill)Section 40

that assessee was incorporated on 15.07.2004 and since then it had been carrying the business as builder and developer. It entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 22.03.2007 with four individuals, namely Mr. M.R. Seetharaman, Mr. M.R. Pattabhiramn, Mr. M.R. Kodandaram and Mr. M.R. Anandaram, who were the land owners

Harjinder Singh Gill, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(3)/ Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 673/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C

assessee was supplied the reasons recorded the reopening of assessment. The Id. AO noted that Shri Harjinder Singh Gill has executed a joint development agreement with M/s Monark Dealcom Pvt. ltd. on 25.06.2012, in respect of landed property located at premises no.125A, Motilal Nehru Road, Kolkata. The Id. AO also ... reopened u/s 147 of the Act for the same reason and the Id. AO accepted the contention of the assessee that the joint development agreement was not executed and the vendor did not receive the consideration and therefore, the capital gain u/s 50C of the Act did not arise

Pedaballi Sukanya, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 49/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr. AR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 54F

information was received from the ITO, Ward-3, Ananthapur that the assessee along with 22 other co-owners had entered into a Joint Development Agreement [in short “JDA”] -cum- General Power of Attorney [in short “GPA”] with GK Shelters ITA.No.49/Hyd./2025 (P) Ltd., Bangalore vide document no. 3933/2011 registered

Sh. Kuldeep Srivastava, Mathura vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2), Mathura

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 227/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(3)Section 257Section 68

such land and later on the flats were sold along with the cost of the land, the whole arrangement is like a joint development agreement between the owner of a land and a builder in which, the owner of the land provides a land and builder constructs flats and after

Sanjeeva Reddy Talla, Medchal Mandal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

partly allowed.” 6. The 1d.AR further submitted that once the AO has satisfied with respect to the amount mentioned in the registered Joint Development Agreement (JDA), which is available from page 100 onwards, more particularly at page 114, whereby the assessee has received Rs.55 lakhs in cash from K. Mahender ... have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee has executed a Joint Development Agreement on 31-05-2016, whereby the assessee has received a sum of Rs.55 lakhs in cash from Shri K. Mahender Reddy and others and the Assessing

Narsi Reddy Komatireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 121/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, SR-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 45

assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has made an addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the basis of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 11.07.2014 / 19.11.2014 and supplementary agreement dated 16.07.2016. However, there was no transfer of land under the said development agreement including the supplementary

Narsi Reddy Komatireddy, Hyderabad vs. Srig. Santosh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 120/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, SR-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 45

Income Tax Officer, Patna vs. Urmila Devi, Patna

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 368/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg

Section 250Section 268ASection 45A

Assessing Officer in this case was of Rs.42,87,074/- on account of capital gains earned by the assessee on execution of Joint Development Agreement. Though the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition observing that section 45A of the Act, which states that the capital gain in respect ... specified agreement (Joint Development Agreement) would accrue on the date of completion of the project and not on the date of execution of the agreement. Therefore, he deleted the addition. I.T.A. No.:368/PAT/2023 Urmila Devi, AY : 2015-16 4. It is observed that in this revenue's appeal, that

Venkataram Spinning Mills Private Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 87/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ld.DR. Satyasai Rath, CIT-

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45

basis, and also it is not the transfer of any share in the right in the development of such land through any joint development agreement, in such circumstances, in our opinion, such transfer like the case before us cannot be considered as a transfer of capital asset. 80. Coming