“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

Ravi Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 167/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.167/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ravi Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-4(4) [Pan : Adopk6597R] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.Srinivas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 04/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee, An Individual Entered Into A Development Agreement Cum General Power Of Attorney Vide Document Number 560/2011 Dated 24.03.2011 With M/S Gayathri Construction Company For Joint Development Of A Property. The Assessee Had Not Disclosed The Transaction In His Return Of Income. Therefore, The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri A.Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 54F

declaring total income at Rs.11,42,204/- which consist of long-term capital gains derived from transfer of property, in pursuant to joint development agreement. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file relevant evidences, to prove long-term capital gains declared from ... transfer of property in pursuant to joint development agreement and also necessary evidences in support of cost of improvement of Rs.66,72,435/-. The Assessing Officer had also called upon the assessee to file relevant evidences to prove deduction u/s 54F of the Act for reinvestment of capital gains

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru vs. Alakananda Printers (P) Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and CO filed by the assessee in support of the Order of the CIT(A)

ITA 1774/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Boarkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 2(47)

search was conducted in the case of Bharath Beedi Works Pvt. Ltd., on 26.02.2020. During the course of search, a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was found. In the said JDA, the assessee is one of the co-owners of land under joint development. In the JDA, there were seven

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ballri., Ballari vs. Ms Abdul Maneed Engineers and Contractors, Kalaburagi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1482/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V, ACIT (DR)

Section 132Section 144Section 153A

that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of construction and sale of units or land acquired through a joint development agreement. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out in the case of the assessee and its group

Ranjeet Prasad, Patna vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Patna

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

ITA 270/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(24)Section 250

impugned addition has been made/confirmed by the lower authorities on account of capital gains earned by the assessee on execution of joint development agreement. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that in fact, no transaction has taken place in terms of section 2(24) of the Act read with relevant provisions ... Transfer of Property Act on the execution of joint development agreement. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that even the said joint development agreement was later on cancelled and no development work was carried out. However, this very fact, which goes to the root of the case has been totally

Mustafa Katthawala, Kota vs. DCIT ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 1156/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 45(3)

declaring a total income of Rs.24,18,000/-. During the review of the assessment records the AO observed that a Joint Development Agreement with one Tirupati Infraprojects on 20.11.2013, during the Financial Year (F.Y.) 2014-15 for developing and constructing residential & commercial project on the land owned by assessee along

Shri. Vadagur Narayanappa Premachandra, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1032/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R.Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar .E, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

allowed.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee along with the other co-owners had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 11/03/2021 with the builder M/s. Balaji Constructions and handed over the land to the extent of 1,35,461 sq.ft. for the development

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 84/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

related to deletion of addition of Rs.83 lakhs. 7. The brief facts related to this appeal are that the assessee entered into Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) with M/s. YKH Builders Pvt. Ltd. (“YKH”) and formed M/s. Pavani and YKH Joint Venture firm (“JV firm”) exclusively for construction of commercial complex ... sq.ft of built up area to YKH builders P Ltd., all as per the terms agreed to under the draft Joint development agreement cum GPA to be entered into with M/s. Western Constructions. 5) Settle all other liabilities arising out of any/ all other advances/investments received from any other prospective

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Pavani Structurals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 478/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Pavani Structurals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 477/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Balaram Janu Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 3(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 4987/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhribalaram Janu Bhoir V/S. Ito, Ward, 3(1), Kalyan बनाम Bhoir Chawl, Bhoir Sadan, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Retibunder Cross Road, Murbad Rod, Kalyan, Thakurli (W), Dist. Thane-421301 Dist. Thane-421202 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Arrpb3139P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri V. G. GindeFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pandep

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 2(47)Section 250

entered into and capital gain would be paid at the time of allotment of built-up area to the assessee. A copy of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was also filed before Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal observing that the assessee did not clarify

Nishank Sakariya, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2343/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 2(47)(v)

while framing assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act for AY 2014-15 by order dated 01.06.2016. 5. According to AO, since Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was entered into by the assessee with M/s.Sky Builders Pvt. Ltd., on 06.04.2012 for transfer of the scheduled land, u/s.2 ... respect of sale of land at Puzhal, Red Hills, Chennai. From the record it was seen that the assessee had entered into Joint Development Agreement with Silver Sky Builders Pvt. Ltd. for this property on 06.04.2012). The salient features of this agreement is reproduced- Paragraph 2. Sharing Ratio

Devidayal Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 4610/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 221(1)

concerned, we quote Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC) that once the entire transaction of land forming subject matter of joint development agreement did not sail through since caught in various litigations and hurdles as in the present case, it does not amount to a transfer under section

Devidayal Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 4609/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 221(1)

Sandesh Vasantrao Pawar, Satara, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara, Maharashtra

ITA 2379/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2379/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rahul KavaleFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 45Section 53A

owners. A public notice was issued in daily newspaper ‘Dainik Pudhari’ on 14.03.2016 for cancellation of the 4 Sandesh Vasantrao Pawar Joint Development Agreement. The Developer filed a civil suit before the Civil Court, Satara and the case was dismissed the suit vide order dated 17.12.2016 because the plaintiff (Developer

R. Neelima Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 45

submitted that during the A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee along with other owners of co-adjacent land entered into a Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) with M/s. YNS Infra Projects Private Limited (“M/s. YNS”) and received two flats from M/s. YNS as consideration in A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee sold both

Vishnu Prasad Thayalan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2779/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2779 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vishnu Prasad Thayalan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.41, General Patters Road, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai-600 002. Non-Corp Circle-7(1), [Pan: Aafpp5144F] Chennai

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT

Section 250Section 57

claimed u/s 57 of the act. The Ld. AO had noted that assessee had received deposits under a joint development agreement and had promised to pay interest thereupon. The Ld. AO, on page 2 and 3 of his order, held the view that the assessee has not incurred the expenditure

ITO (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally, International Taxation – 1 Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Nenpk4757J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

Since, the Assessing Officer was in possession of information that the assessee along with 46 other persons had entered into Joint Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney with M/s Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP, Hyd for construction of residential and commercial project vide deed 4 ITA 882/Hyd/2024 bearing no. 2357/2016 ... leviable on completion of development agreement. 24. Further, we noted that neither the consideration was received by the assessee pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement dt.10.02.2016 nor the possession was handed over to it by her, therefore, it cannot be said that any transfer took place within the meaning

ACIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad vs. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 428/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ward ERI /For Respondent: grag # ata /

Section 14A

PJSC has replied to the legal notices by two letters dt.08.12.2010 and 03.01.2011 to address the concerns raised by APIIC, in respect of Joint Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney. In the meantime, based on a letter written by an MLA, which was taken up as a Writ Petition ... valid, as per the stand taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. According to the Assessing Officer, the appellan company by entering into Joint Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney with Emaar MGF, Delhi has diluted the share of APIIC and therefore, the said Joint Developmen Agreement cum General

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 427/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ward ERI /For Respondent: grag # ata /

Section 14A

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 426/HYD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ward ERI /For Respondent: grag # ata /

Section 14A