“JDA”

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

The decision most relied on for JDA is Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT (260 ITR 491), cited in 150 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on JDA

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.

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.

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (

411 ITR 533 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

A joint development agreement may not result in a transfer of property until possession is passed, meaning capital gains may not arise at the time of the agreement. Consideration received for a joint development project might be a license fee rather than purchase consideration, depending on the agreement's terms.

Smt. Shanta Vidya Sagar Annam v. Income Tax Officer

170 Taxmann.com 754 · High Court

citing judgments

Capital gains cannot be said to have accrued in the year of execution of a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) if no consideration is received and possession is handed over only for development purposes.

Judgments citing JDA

Sri Alagappa Annamalai(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

ITA 776/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No: Aaaha3885P Appellant

Section 131

area shared between the developers and these 2 persons are as under :- Landowners and Developers share in the Land in the Project as Per JDA Particulars Land Share (Sq. Ft) Developers Share (Sq. Ft) Total in Sq. Ft Commercial 77,627 77,627 Residential ... Total Area 92,257 1,94,368 2,86,625 Landowners and Developers share in the Constructed Area in the Project as Per JDA Particulars Share in Commercial Portion Share in Residential Portion Total Share Landowner 2,33,818 33,443 2,67,261 Developer

Sri Alagappa Muthiah(HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(4), Bangalore

ITA 775/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No: Aaана3885P Appellant

Section 131

area shared between the developers and these 2 persons are as under :- Landowners and Developers share in the Land in the Project as Per JDA Particulars Commercial Residential Total Area Land Share (Sq. Ft) 77,627 14,630 92,257 Developers Share ... Landowners and Developers share in the Constructed Area in the Project as Per JDA Particulars Share in Commercial Portion 2,33,818 Share in Residential Portion 33,443 Total Share 2,67,261 Landowner Developer Total

Sh. Kesar Kadir Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA 372/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 69A

Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, brief of the case are that the assessee is a salaried person working as an employee of JDA. He has filed the return on 23.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,84,220/- (PB 9-11). The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny ... written submission by praying therein to delete the addition sustained by the ld.CIT(A) Submission:- 1. The assessee is a Govt. employee in JDA working as Sr. Assistant in ACJM Court No.2 at JDA, Jaipur. His only source of income is income from salary. He inherited an ancestral immovable property

Dhirendra Nath Das, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Durgapur

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

ITA 491/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.491/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Nath Das.…....………………………… ........................……Appellant C/O Jain Vinod & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kol-700017. [Pan: Adgpd9102P] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Durgapur.................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jain, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Fact In Dismissing The Appeal When He Ought To Consider That Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Has Wrongly Assumed The Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Hence The Assessment Order Passed There On Is Null & Void Ab-Initio. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law As Well As On Fact To Upheld The Assessment Order Of The Jao Treating Agreement Of Development As

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

assessee as transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the assessee had executed a JDA, however, never handed over the possession of the land to the developer. That there was a condition that the land will be handed over ... land could not be vacated from the tenants, therefore, the same could not be handed over to the developer. That due to this, the JDA did not mature and hence neither income was received nor accrued to the assessee for the year under consideration

Huntsman Investments (Netherlands), Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4222/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 234B

Balbir Singh Maini case (supra) held that when for want of permission entire transaction of development of land envisaged in Joint Development Agreement (JDA) fell through; there would be no profit or gain which arose from transfer of capital asset, which could be brought to tax under section 45, read

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Lakshmi Narayana Turairao, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54B

therefore dismissed. " ITA No.232/Hyd/2020 11 The Hon'ble AP High Court very clearly held that the transfer is complete on the execution of the JDA and thus, this transfer to M/s. Sara Homes was liable to be taxed in A.Y. 2004-05. From the above discussions, it is clear that ... appellant and the co- owners sold the right in property, to the extent of above, which was created in their favour by the JDA. This right is a short term right, which was acquired on 21.04.2003 and was sold on 18.08.2005. The same is liable to be taxed as short

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF), Bangalore

ITA 720/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 194Section 250

opinion. ➤ The Ld. NFAC has erred on facts and circumstance of the case in not considering that the right to receive asset as per JDA is a fictitious capital asset moreover it is guarantee to receive the asset in future. It cannot be termed as liquidable capital asset for computation ... return of income on 25.03.2021 by declaring an income of Rs.27,51,54,480/-. The assessee has entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with one Brigade Enterprises Ltd. for development of his lands which were earlier used by the assessee for agricultural purposes. During the course of assessment proceedings

Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 106/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.106/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. Ltd. ...……………………....………....Appellant C/O Advocate Amit Agarwal, 50D, Mukta Ram Babu Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aabcv0376L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 21St March, 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant In Liminie Without Dealing With The Merits Of The Case & By Not Passing Order On The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant Assessee Company Against The Impugned Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act

Section 147Section 250Section 68

competent authority that the assessee was the confirming party in the said conveyance deed. That the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’) with the said 41 persons and further that the litigation was going on in the Civil Court and subsequently in the High Court relating ... said JDA entered into by the assessee with the aforesaid 41 persons. So far as the fact relevant to the present case is concerned, a factual finding has been given in the said order that the assessee had duly explained the source of the payment and which was found satisfactory

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Apurupa Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed

Section 153C

first partner, has contributed Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rs.1.5 crore through cheque and Rs.1.5 crore in cash) as its share to fulfill the JDA requirem'ents, as elaborated in the previous paragraphs. Consequently, it logically follows that the second partner, Apurupa Infra, would similarly hold an obligation to provide ... equal amount towards the JDA, which would be Rs.3,00,00,000/-. However, considering that Apurupa Infra lacked sufficient funds in their bank account, it's reasonable to assume that they brought in the funds in the form of cash. The above means that up till the sixth

ACIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Tranquil Properties, Hydetrabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed

Section 153C

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 984/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Promotion - Sales schemes and discounts expenses. She drew our attention to the statement recorded from Sri. Paul P John, Chairman of M/S. JDA L on 06.03.2017 and relevant portion of the statement is reproduced below: Q.40 Please furnish the supporting bills/vouchers for the following expenditure claimed (as per the financial

Shri Khatu Shyam Builders, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

relation to the Real Estate Project undertaken by the assessee firm, such as expenses in relation to the finance cost, interest paid to partners, JDA expenses, certain salary expenses, totaling to Rs. 62,21,493, should form part of the work-in-progress and thus should not be allowed ... Depreciation 1,95,731 3 45,06,249 Interest Paid to 16 SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR Partners 4 JDA Expenses 7,19,842 5 Salary Site 9,90,578 6 Site Office Expenses 4,599 7 Other Expenses 60,24,706 Total

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Kavya Boppana, Hyderabad

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

ITA 695/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 139(1)

Rs.7 crores and addition towards differential amount of long term capital gain in pursuant to Joint Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “JDA”) entered into by the appellant with M/s. Skills Promoters Private Limited on 11.05.2009 amounting to Rs.7.77 crores. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before ... assessee, wherein the ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions made towards computation of long term capital gain from transfer of property in pursuant to JDA dt.11.05.2009 and partly allowed relief in respect of addition towards compensation received from the builder for delayed delivery of constructed building in Sarat City Capital Mall

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Jhansi Rani Boppana, Hyderabad

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

ITA 693/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 139(1)

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Tara Chand Boppana, Hyderabad

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

ITA 691/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 139(1)

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad

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

ITA 689/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 139(1)

Tara Chand Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 643/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 139(1)

Kavya Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 639/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 139(1)

Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 636/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 139(1)

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

residence of Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim, documents belonging to M/S Emirates Hindustan Builders & Developers have been seized. The seized documents included a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 19.04.2017, as per which, one Mr. P B Ahammed and Mr. Thouseef PA as the first party, being the owner of the land measuring ... given, Rs. 102.25 Lakh was given as cash and only the remaining amount was given as cheque / RTGS. It was also evident from the JDA that out of the total payment of Rs. 2.5 crores made on different dates, two payments, namely Rs.82,25,000/- on 3.10.2016 and ITA Nos.414