JDA — 453 case laws

Balu Ram, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to costs

ITA 72/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: the AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A) because of the reasons that the copies of these documents could not be obtained by the assessee. The ld AR further submitted that these documents are crucial material for just decision of the appeal. On the contrary, the ld. DR strongly contested this application for leading the additional evidences and submitted that the documents now filed record are not public documents and are self styled documents. Therefore, none of these documents are required

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

deed ie 11/11/2010, as per the point mentioned in the sale deed on the page no. 8 with the pattas to be allotted from JDA….."In this context another mentioned condition THE PATTA TO BE ALLOTED is also pending land using exclusively as agricultural land, hence on the basis

Megha Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the Appeal of the appellant stands dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 959/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43C

said plot of the land. The plan of the appellant to construct the multistory commercial complex building on the said plot was approved by JDA vide letter dated 12.09.2003. The appellant being party of the first part constructed the multistory building called popularly as apex mall on the said plot

DCIT, Intl. Taxn., Circel1(2), Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1326/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250

facts of the case are as follows: Assessee for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2018-19 received certain amounts from its Indian subsidiary M/s. JDA Software Inc., (now Blue Yonder Inc.,) towards (i) subscription charges for use of database, (ii) telephone and broadband charges (iii) computer maintenance expenses

DCIT, Intl Taxn, Circle-1(2), Bng, Bengaluru vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1302/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250

facts of the case are as follows: Assessee for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2018-19 received certain amounts from its Indian subsidiary M/s. JDA Software Inc., (now Blue Yonder Inc.,) towards (i) subscription charges for use of database, (ii) telephone and broadband charges (iii) computer maintenance expenses

Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao, Florida, Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 40/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 40/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao V. Asst. Cit 7266, Chelsea Harbor Dr International Taxation Orlando, Florida, Usa – 32829 Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road Usa - 322829 Visakhapatnam - 530016 [Pan :Aiipk6712H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदधतध कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Assessee Represented By : Mrs. Hema Latha K., Ar रधजस्व कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148

including the Stamp duty Value of UDS / land, it is submitted that since assessee owns the land already and what he received under JDA is only the Built-up area in lieu of transfer of 1626.20 UDS/land to the builder, it is not correct on the part ... Officer wrongly calculated the short term capital gain. Page No. 7 I.T.A. No. 40/VIZ/2024 Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao It can be clearly seen, as per JDA appellant's share in car space parking is only to the extent of 1620 sq. ft and developer's share

Shree Rajput Sabha, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 311/JPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

Charitable trust Registration under s. 12A - Charitable purpose of planning and development of city vis-a-vis earning of profit - Predominant object of the JDA being to secure the integrated development of the region which undoubtedly falls within the expression 'advancement of any other objects of general public utility' within ... character so as to render it ineligible to claim registration under s. 12A r/w s. 12AA - Order passed by the Tribunal holding the JDA entitled for registration under s. 12A r/w s. 12AA does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality - For similar reasons, order passed by the Tribunal, holding

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Realty Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 967/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 967/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,...……Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Emami Realty Limited,……………………..……Respondent 13Th Floor, Acropolis 1858/1, Rajdanga Main Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal [Pan: Aalcs5120P] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 09, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

ITA No. 967/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2021-2022) Emami Realty Limited THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal

Mahendra Singh Chawla, Indore vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 245/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

year of transfer of land by the landowner. The court observed that the contract read indicates that at the time of entering JDA, there is transfer of complete control over the property in favor of the developer. Therefore, the date of entering JDA, in the above decision was relevant

Shobna Agarwal, Ajmer Road Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 226/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

book very suspicious. 4. The trend in the month to month balance shows that the assessee has used the cash towards conversion fees for JDA etc. 5. The opening cash shown in the cash book is Rs. 1,46,157/- but in the previous the assesseedisclosed closing balance ... finding in the assessment order that "The above trail shows that the assessee has used major of its cash towards conversion fees for JDA etc. The assessee had many privileges to withdraw cash in a day or two if such conversion is in need, he need not accumulate for these

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 64/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

expenses also. Thereby treating entire cash receipts as income is not appropriate." 3.4. The Assessing Officer had relied upon point no.22, 14 of the JDA along with terms of Schedule C and B, point No.16 and held as under : “As seen from the above terms of joint development agreement between ... receipts were distributed equally between the appellant firm and the builder, M/s. DSR based on the sharing ratio of 50:50 as per the JDA entered between them. Accordingly, total unaccounted income was quantified by the investigation wing as under: Assessee AY Unaccounted • income estimated (in Rs.) M/s. DSR Infrastructure

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 57/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

expenses also. Thereby treating entire cash receipts as income is not appropriate." 3.4. The Assessing Officer had relied upon point no.22, 14 of the JDA along with terms of Schedule C and B, point No.16 and held as under : “As seen from the above terms of joint development agreement between ... receipts were distributed equally between the appellant firm and the builder, M/s. DSR based on the sharing ratio of 50:50 as per the JDA entered between them. Accordingly, total unaccounted income was quantified by the investigation wing as under: Assessee AY Unaccounted • income estimated (in Rs.) M/s. DSR Infrastructure

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 56/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

expenses also. Thereby treating entire cash receipts as income is not appropriate." 3.4. The Assessing Officer had relied upon point no.22, 14 of the JDA along with terms of Schedule C and B, point No.16 and held as under : “As seen from the above terms of joint development agreement between ... receipts were distributed equally between the appellant firm and the builder, M/s. DSR based on the sharing ratio of 50:50 as per the JDA entered between them. Accordingly, total unaccounted income was quantified by the investigation wing as under: Assessee AY Unaccounted • income estimated (in Rs.) M/s. DSR Infrastructure

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

expenses also. Thereby treating entire cash receipts as income is not appropriate." 3.4. The Assessing Officer had relied upon point no.22, 14 of the JDA along with terms of Schedule C and B, point No.16 and held as under : “As seen from the above terms of joint development agreement between ... receipts were distributed equally between the appellant firm and the builder, M/s. DSR based on the sharing ratio of 50:50 as per the JDA entered between them. Accordingly, total unaccounted income was quantified by the investigation wing as under: Assessee AY Unaccounted • income estimated (in Rs.) M/s. DSR Infrastructure

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 53/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

expenses also. Thereby treating entire cash receipts as income is not appropriate." 3.4. The Assessing Officer had relied upon point no.22, 14 of the JDA along with terms of Schedule C and B, point No.16 and held as under : “As seen from the above terms of joint development agreement between ... receipts were distributed equally between the appellant firm and the builder, M/s. DSR based on the sharing ratio of 50:50 as per the JDA entered between them. Accordingly, total unaccounted income was quantified by the investigation wing as under: Assessee AY Unaccounted • income estimated (in Rs.) M/s. DSR Infrastructure

D S R Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

expenses also. Thereby treating entire cash receipts as income is not appropriate." 3.4. The Assessing Officer had relied upon point no.22, 14 of the JDA along with terms of Schedule C and B, point No.16 and held as under : “As seen from the above terms of joint development agreement between ... receipts were distributed equally between the appellant firm and the builder, M/s. DSR based on the sharing ratio of 50:50 as per the JDA entered between them. Accordingly, total unaccounted income was quantified by the investigation wing as under: Assessee AY Unaccounted • income estimated (in Rs.) M/s. DSR Infrastructure

DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 50/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

expenses also. Thereby treating entire cash receipts as income is not appropriate." 3.4. The Assessing Officer had relied upon point no.22, 14 of the JDA along with terms of Schedule C and B, point No.16 and held as under : “As seen from the above terms of joint development agreement between ... receipts were distributed equally between the appellant firm and the builder, M/s. DSR based on the sharing ratio of 50:50 as per the JDA entered between them. Accordingly, total unaccounted income was quantified by the investigation wing as under: Assessee AY Unaccounted • income estimated (in Rs.) M/s. DSR Infrastructure

D S R Infrastructureprivate Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

expenses also. Thereby treating entire cash receipts as income is not appropriate." 3.4. The Assessing Officer had relied upon point no.22, 14 of the JDA along with terms of Schedule C and B, point No.16 and held as under : “As seen from the above terms of joint development agreement between ... receipts were distributed equally between the appellant firm and the builder, M/s. DSR based on the sharing ratio of 50:50 as per the JDA entered between them. Accordingly, total unaccounted income was quantified by the investigation wing as under: Assessee AY Unaccounted • income estimated (in Rs.) M/s. DSR Infrastructure

Shuvro Chattaraj, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

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

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

capital gains. The assessee paid taxes as applicable in both the years. 6. On 26.09.2014, the assessee entered into a fresh Joint Development Agreement (JDA), this time duly registered, with Tanvee Green city (P) Ltd. represented by its director Mr. Apurba Shyam. The agreement was executed on fresh terms ... assessment years, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 wherein inter alia he had offered capital gains on considerations received under earlier JDA in each assessment years as also under the fresh JDA respectively, copies of MOU dated 03.11.2011 and old unregistered development agreement dated

Jaishree Varadaraj, Coimbatore vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri Jaishree Varadaraj, The Ito, 1547-A, Avinashi Road, International Taxation Ward, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 004. [Pan: Abgpv 5575 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

brought to his notice that he (the assessee) being the landlord of immovable property, had entered into Joint Development Agreement (hereinafter in short ‘JDA’) with the developer to built flats, and agreed to give him (developer) 45% of built up area along with undivided share [UDS] of immovable property ... brushed aside the afore stated contentions and proceeded to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessee was directed to file details regarding JDA entered into by assessee with M/s. Foundation One India Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter in short ‘developer’) for substantiating his claim; and the assessee filed the confirmation from

Nalpad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Banglaore

ITA 1298/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, ITP &For Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

chargeable to tax for the impugned A.Y. 2017-18 as no asset as transferred except the stock in trade transferred in pursuance of the JDA dated 08-01-2008 entered with M/S. Bridge Enterprises Ltd. 3. The ld. ClT(A) has erred in rejecting the ground adduced relating to limitation ... that the said certificate was not a relevant document for chargeability of Tax relating to transfer of stock in trade in pursuance of the JDA dated 08-01-2018. ITA Nos.1297/Bang/2024 & SP 33/Bang/2024 Nalapad Properties, Bangalore ITA No.1298/Bang/2024 & SP 34/Bang/2024 Nalapad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bangalore Page

“JDA”

Leading authorities on JDA

Judgments citing JDA

Balu Ram, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2), Jaipur

Megha Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

DCIT, Intl. Taxn., Circel1(2), Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

DCIT, Intl Taxn, Circle-1(2), Bng, Bengaluru vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

Uppada Kesavajanardhana Rao, Florida, Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

Shree Rajput Sabha, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Realty Limited, Kolkata

Mahendra Singh Chawla, Indore vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore

Shobna Agarwal, Ajmer Road Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

D S R Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

D S R Infrastructureprivate Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 1(4), Hyderabad

Shuvro Chattaraj, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

Jaishree Varadaraj, Coimbatore vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

Nalpad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Banglaore