← All Phrases

“JDA”

Capital GainsSection 45(5A)Section 45(5A)453 judgments

ALLRUI SRINIVAS RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1923/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1923/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Allrui Srinivas Raju, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-12(1), Pan: Ahepr6968H Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri K C Devdas, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 12/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Allrui Srinivas Raju, (“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 17/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. Allrui Srinivas Raju Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Rounds Of Appeal:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2

CBDT through the Insight portal, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) observed that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) for an amount of Rs.12,47,22,564/-. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income ... filed under section 139 of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had entered into a JDA dated 10.07.2015 with M/s Jeedimetla Residential Homes Private Limited along with three other land owners. According to the Ld. AO, the assessee was entitled

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8287/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessee, it is the claim of the assessee that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi has paid capital gains on the transfer under the JDA. We notice that since the assessee could not produce the evidences and Form 26A that the FAA did not accept the submissions of the assessee. With regard

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessee, it is the claim of the assessee that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi has paid capital gains on the transfer under the JDA. We notice that since the assessee could not produce the evidences and Form 26A that the FAA did not accept the submissions of the assessee. With regard

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8285/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessee, it is the claim of the assessee that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi has paid capital gains on the transfer under the JDA. We notice that since the assessee could not produce the evidences and Form 26A that the FAA did not accept the submissions of the assessee. With regard

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8284/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

assessee, it is the claim of the assessee that Shri Premal Dayalal Doshi has paid capital gains on the transfer under the JDA. We notice that since the assessee could not produce the evidences and Form 26A that the FAA did not accept the submissions of the assessee. With regard

SHRI. VIJAY MAHANTESH TRADING COMPANY,NAVALGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2414/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250Section 68

Shivaleela S. Bagi was received in the bank account of her son, Mr. Vijay Mahantesh Bagi, who was also a party to the JDA. It was explained that Mr. Vijay Mahantesh Bagi had withdrawn the amount and brought the same into the firm as capital. The AO, however ... with her three sons had received a sum of Rs. 48 lakhs as refundable deposit pursuant to Joint . Page 4 of 11 Development Agreement (JDA). It was explained that the said amount was credited in the bank account of the elder son, Mr. Vijay Mahantesh Bagi, maintained with Karnataka Bank

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

ITA 628/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 56

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n2026-03-06 13:45+05:30\nSr. Private Secretary\nITAT, Visakhapatnam", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with a builder, which was later cancelled. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the consideration mentioned in the JDA as income and levied capital gains ... Joint Development Agreement was cancelled, and no construction took place. Crucially, there was no proof that the assessee received the consideration mentioned in the JDA or parted with possession of the land. Therefore, the addition for capital gains was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "271(1)(c)", "144B", "194A

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 469/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250(6)

contention, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had, along with 17 other\nco-owners, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (for short, “JDA") on\n30.07.2008. Thereafter, the AO had initiated re-assessment proceedings for the\nsubject year, i.e., AY 2009-10 and issued notice under section ... dated 28.12.2016 made an addition of LTCG of Rs.1,16,58,384/-\npertaining to the transfer of land as per the aforementioned JDA dated\n30.07.2008. The Ld. AR submitted that aggrieved with the order passed by the\nA.O under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 468/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250(6)

contention, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had, along with 17 other\nco-owners, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (for short, “JDA") on\n30.07.2008. Thereafter, the AO had initiated re-assessment proceedings for the\nsubject year, i.e., AY 2009-10 and issued notice under section ... dated 28.12.2016 made an addition of LTCG of Rs.1,16,58,384/-\npertaining to the transfer of land as per the aforementioned JDA dated\n30.07.2008. The Ld. AR submitted that aggrieved with the order passed by the\nA.O under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated

VINOD YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA

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

ITA 398/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(ii)Section 50CSection 53A

computed the capital gain\narising from the said transfer at ₹3,45,79,350/- as under:-\n1) Total area of land as per JDA 21280 sq. ft\n2) Total permitted Super Build Area to be constructed on the land (As\nper FAR Provisions) 53,199 sq. ft\n3) Total number

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C

computed the capital gain arising from the said\ntransfer at ₹1,33,85,300/- as under:-\n1) Total area of land as per JDA 12,598 SFT\n2) Total permitted Super Build Area to be constructed on the land (As 31495 SFT\nper FAR Provisions)\n3) Total number of land

LATE RAMA KUMARI MUNNA REPRESENTED BY SHRI SHIVAYYA MUNNA HUSBAND LEGAL HEIR,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

ITA 541/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250

against the facts of the case. 2. The Learned CIT(A) and the lower authorities have erred in holding that the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 18.03.2016 constituted a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the following ... That the JDA did not effectuate any identifiable transfer of property, inasmuch as there was no individual demarcation or allocation of flat numbers, parking areas, or common areas to the appellant; (ii) That no possession enabling the developer to exercise rights of ownership or effect sale was delivered; the land

CHERIE TANDON SALDAHNA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 6576/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(x)

nsection 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?\n(ii)\nWhether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has ignored rights\nemanating from the JDA, legal effect of non registration of JDA, its alleged\nrepudiation etc.?\n(iii)\nWhether \"possession\" as envisaged by section 2(47)(v) and\nsection

M/S. BUHARI HOTELS & MOTELS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2449/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2449/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Buhari Hotels & Motels Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.6, Gandhi Irwin Road, Corporate Circe 1(2), Egmore, Chennai. Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaecb 4681M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sujaya, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Sujaya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 250

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company. It had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with Chaitanya Developers Pvt., Ltd., on 16.08.2007. As per the terms of the JDA, the developer (Chaitanya Developers :- 3 -: Pvt., Ltd.,) would develop its land ... assessee and balance 12 units belong to the developer. 5. The Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) arising out of the transfer of land through JDA was assessed at Rs.19,69,50,417/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The assessment was contested by the assessee in appeal before

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

ITA 2451/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 54F

transaction and undisputed facts are as under. - 10.10.1971 Properties were acquired on 10.10.1971 through settlement deed. ii. 12.10.2008 The appellant entered into JDA with A K Properties Promoters (AK hereafter) iii. 16.12.2015 pellant and AK Proper moters ⅲ. entered in JDA with M/s Jain Housing and Construction Ltd. (M/s Jain ... appellant handed over possession of the land to AK pursuant to the JDA dated 12.10.2008. AK constructed building number 2 which was complete up to 80% when the appellant and AK entered into new JDA. ITA Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 Kesavan Vanithamani :- 5 -: 5.1.6 The A.O. taxed the whole capital gain

SAVITA KAMLAKAR BIRAJDAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

ITA 2190/PUN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Through Virtual)
Section 144Section 147Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एक सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

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

ITA 709/PUN/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

lieu thereof, secured the right to develop a building project on the balance land 3. Subsequently, Skyline entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with Brahma Builders ("Brahma") on 21/03/2006. The JDA stipulated a profit-sharing ratio of 32% for Skyline and 68% for Brahma from the sale proceeds ... Return of Income filed on 27/11/2006 3. Absence of Project Activity/Accrual of Income: It is crucial to note that since the JDA was executed on 21/03/2006, no major activities regarding the housing project were carried out by either Skyline or Brahma before 31/03/2006 (the end of FY 2005-06). Consequently

SAHODHAR REDDY MUDDASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1619/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sahodhar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Muddasani Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aelpm9122N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Shri C Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.09.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Shri C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 53A

with Shri Cheruku Anand Reddy and Shri Manohar Reddy Cheruku (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the landowners”), had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) dated 19.01.2016 with the developer. As per the terms of the JDA, in respect of land measuring 676 sq. yards, the landowners were entitled ... receive 1,853 sq. ft. of built-up area. The Ld. AO held that the execution of the JDA constituted a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and that capital gains under section 45(1) of the Act arose in the year of execution

SYKEN SURESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6771/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsuken Suresh Mehta, Income Tax Officer, A-28, Sterling Apartments, 19(3)(1), 38, Peddar Road, Mumbai Cumballa Hills, Vs. Mumbai- 400026

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA And Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 48

acquired 18,443 sq.ft. of land in Coimbatore through registered sale deed dated 28.08.1981. On 21.08.2013, the assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) cum Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Elysium Properties India Pvt. Ltd. for jointly developing a property named ‘Elysium The Address’. As per the terms ... JDA cum MOU, the assessee was required to assign rights in the undivided land proportionate to 45% of the constructed area to the developer. In exchange, the developer agreed to construct the residential premises and give 55% of such constructed area to the assessee. Additionally, assessee received interest free

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 1457/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2Section 250Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

erred in\nobserving that scheme of demerger only resulted in transfer of the rights & benefits\naccruing from the JDA and not the land itself.\n9. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in\nobserving that there is no case

Showing 1–20 of 453 · Page 1 of 23

...