← All Phrases

“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
58
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
40
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
35
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
33
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
32
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
23
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

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

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

ITA 424/HYD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

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

Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 253/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

Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 252/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

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

Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 251/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

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

Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 250/HYD/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

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

Jiban Lal Shaw, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 28(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2171/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2171/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Jiban Lal Shaw,…………………….………………Appellant 34, Deshpran Sashmal Road, Tollygunge Phari, Kolkata-700033 [Pan:Fqzps9800N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-28(1), Kolkata, 2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700033 Appearances By: Shri Sutosom Bhattcharyya, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 12, 2024 O R D E R

small cold drink shop. 1 Jiban Lal Shaw The assessee and his family members have some joint family property and entered into a joint development agreement for construction of a building on the said land. The assessee has received Rs.2,66,677/- as consideration. The assessee has not received

ACIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bombay Footwear Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji and Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 45Section 50D

No.1645/Mum/2021 wherein the order passed by PCIT u/s.263 of the Act was quashed ignoring the fact that the assessee has entered into a joint development agreement by opting to revenue sharing formula to gain commercial advantage of trade & Profession in place of capital gain? 2. Whether on the facts ... that the relationship between the Assessee and the Developer was strictly on principled to principle basis. The Development Agreement did not constitute a joint Development Agreement. While the Assessee was being compensated by way of share of the Gross Revenue received from sell of constructed area, the cost of development

Vinod Prasad Injeti, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

ITA 1252/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Jyothi Anumolu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

develop ‘Mulberry Meadows’ therein. With the developer, assessee agreed to get constructed Villa No.36, admeasuring 2664 sq.ft. There was also a joint development agreement. All these facts are considered and incorporated in the agreement to Sell dated 02.3.2008 between the Seller, Preeti Developers P. Ltd., - Developer and Mr. Vinod Injeti ... transfer the land of 7 acres 20 guntas converted into non-agricultural property for residential purposes. The owners also having entered into joint development agreement with Preeti Developers P. Ltd. on 24.11.2006 for construction of a Villa. As per agreement, total cost of property was divided as cost of land

Sills Karingattil Jose, Nedumkandom vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

that these conclusions by the officer and by the first appellate authority are wrong and against the facts of the case. 6. The joint development agreement entered into between the appellant and the builders do not tantamount to an agreement specified under section 53A of the transfer of property ... officer and the first appellate authority in this regard are grossly unfounded and incorrect. 8. There being no "transfer" by way of a Joint development agreement in the case under reference, the conclusion of the officer and first appellate authority is against the facts and circumstance of the case

Ashutosh Das, Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1954/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 1942 & 1954/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ashutosh Das,……………………………….….……Appellant C/O. Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adfpd9215N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer by holding that right under the Joint Development Agreement is to be construed as transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. 3. With the assistance ... Durgapur Municipality, West Bengal. This property was inherited by all these family members after the death of their father. He entered into a Joint Development Agreement vide Registered Deed dated 27.01.2015 with M/s. Samridhi Housing Pvt. Limited. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that fair market value of the said

Ashutosh Das, Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1942/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 1942 & 1954/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ashutosh Das,……………………………….….……Appellant C/O. Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adfpd9215N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer by holding that right under the Joint Development Agreement is to be construed as transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. 3. With the assistance ... Durgapur Municipality, West Bengal. This property was inherited by all these family members after the death of their father. He entered into a Joint Development Agreement vide Registered Deed dated 27.01.2015 with M/s. Samridhi Housing Pvt. Limited. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that fair market value of the said

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Madikeri vs. Govindappa Jayaram Doddaiah, Madapura, Kodagu

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1356/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. H.D. Thejaswini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 54

basis. The AO also made an addition on account of refundable security deposits paid by the developer to the assessee while entering the Joint Development Agreement as income of the assessee. As against the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) by contending that ... appellant had made a claim for shortfall of area received by him from the project which wasn't in accordance with the joint development agreement and arbitration is under process. b. He failed to consider the fact that the arbitration is under process. Page

Govindappa Jayaram Doddiah (HUF), Kodagu vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. H.D. Thejaswini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 54

basis. The AO also made an addition on account of refundable security deposits paid by the developer to the assessee while entering the Joint Development Agreement as income of the assessee. As against the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) by contending that ... appellant had made a claim for shortfall of area received by him from the project which wasn't in accordance with the joint development agreement and arbitration is under process. b. He failed to consider the fact that the arbitration is under process. Page

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

147/143(3) on 19.11.2018 at a total income of Rs. 23,75,350/-. During the year under consideration the assessee entered into a joint development agreement in respect of his landed property for developing premises. As per agreement, the assessee was entitled to receive 50% built up area, which

Hasina Akbar Gawandi, Boisar vs. CIT (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 3377/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Hasina Akbar Gawandi Cit(Appeals) C-1/6, First Floor, K.P. Nagar, Income Tax Department, Behind Contessa Hotel Taps, Vs. Nfac, Delhi Boisar, Palghar, Maharashtra-401 506

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed MemonFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Karpe
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 45

residential property, with no cash involved. Under Section 45(5A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the taxability for transactions under a Joint Development Agreement arises in the year in which the completion certificate for the whole or part of the property is issued by the competent authority. However ... Assessing Officer erroneously treated the Joint Development Agreement as a sale and subsequently passed an order to tax the Long Term Capital Gains. The assessee contends that this order is erroneous and does not align with the legal provisions governing the taxability of Joint Development Agreements. 2 Hasina Akbar Gawandi

Venkata Subba Reddy Sankepally, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward -13(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 989/HYD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 989/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Venkata Subba Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sankepally Ward 13(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ajrps3577Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Sashi Kant, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Sashi Kant, DR
Section 147Section 54Section 54F

return of income for the A.Y 2009-10 on 26/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs.1,77,320/-. The appellant had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s. Cauveri Builders on 29/03/2004 for development of a property and received 4 flats admeasuring 7264 sft and 50% of parking area

Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Basani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 694/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.AR
Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(3)

case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement “hereinafter referred to as the “JDA” on 26-04-2012 with M/s LAL Constructions and received three flats measuring 4240 sq. ft. from the builders

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Asian Infra Estates LLP, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 685/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 28

response, the assessee submitted that the appellant and other group companies along with other land owners had entered into joint development agreement with M/s. Skill Promoters (P) Ltd and received 55,400 sft commercial space in Block-A. The appellant has sold 27,700 sft commercial space in Block ... Cinemas LLP, a sister concern of Asian Group. Since the appellant is a land owner and received built up area in pursuant to joint development agreement with builders, the asset remains continued to be capital asset but not inventory as alleged and consequently, the question of conversion of inventory into

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Asian Infra Estates Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 684/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 28

response, the assessee submitted that the appellant and other group companies along with other land owners had entered into joint development agreement with M/s. Skill Promoters (P) Ltd and received 55,400 sft commercial space in Block-A. The appellant has sold 27,700 sft commercial space in Block ... Cinemas LLP, a sister concern of Asian Group. Since the appellant is a land owner and received built up area in pursuant to joint development agreement with builders, the asset remains continued to be capital asset but not inventory as alleged and consequently, the question of conversion of inventory into

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Asian Dwellings LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 683/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Dwellings Llp Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Abmfa1423A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.684 & 685/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Asian Infra Estates Ltd Income Tax, Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7660 & Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad Asian Infra Estates Llp Hyderabad Pan:Abnf5143L (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 3 Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 28

response, the assessee submitted that the appellant and other group companies along with other land owners had entered into joint development agreement with M/s. Skill Promoters (P) Ltd and received 55,400 sft commercial space in Block-A. The appellant has sold 27,700 sft commercial space in Block ... Cinemas LLP, a sister concern of Asian Group. Since the appellant is a land owner and received built up area in pursuant to joint development agreement with builders, the asset remains continued to be capital asset but not inventory as alleged and consequently, the question of conversion of inventory into