← All Phrases

“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
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.

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.

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (
411 ITR 533 · 2019 · High Court
12
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
12
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

Balasundaram Mahalakshmi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1411/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1411/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ms. Balasundaram Mahalakshmi Dcit बनाम/ 216, Atd Road, Race Course, Non-Corporate Circle-4 Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiopm-6371-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

Rs.569.91 Lacs. Upon examination, it was noted that the assessee and three of her family members entered into a joint development agreement (JDA) with M/s Srivari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (SIPL) and impugned deduction was claimed on the share of developed property received by the assessee. 3.2 As per terms ... JDA, the total area of land to be developed was Rs.84506 Sq. Ft. and the assessee and co-owners agreed to transfer 51841 sq. ft. of land against constructed area of 86649 sq. ft. which include 72408 sq. ft. of residential space and 14241 sq. ft. of commercial space. This

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Saaksha Developers Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2978/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2976/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2977/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2978/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito M/S Saaksha Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-6(1), No.1, Subbraya Avenue, C.P.Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aamcs-2275-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 37(1)

Accordingly, the case was reopened. It transpired that the assessee purchased 4.44 acres of land at Pallikarani and entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with AERL on 21-06-2009. A project called Mapleton Apartments consisting of 465 residential apartments in 6 blocks was conceived under the agreement ... charges, Ld. CIT(A) held that the same was on incorrect assumption of facts. It was clear the expenditure had nothing to do with JDA but it was for finding buyers for land as retained by the assessee. The payment was through banking channel after compliance of provision of Sec.194H

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Saaksha Developers Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2977/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2976/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2977/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2978/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito M/S Saaksha Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-6(1), No.1, Subbraya Avenue, C.P.Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aamcs-2275-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 37(1)

Accordingly, the case was reopened. It transpired that the assessee purchased 4.44 acres of land at Pallikarani and entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with AERL on 21-06-2009. A project called Mapleton Apartments consisting of 465 residential apartments in 6 blocks was conceived under the agreement ... charges, Ld. CIT(A) held that the same was on incorrect assumption of facts. It was clear the expenditure had nothing to do with JDA but it was for finding buyers for land as retained by the assessee. The payment was through banking channel after compliance of provision of Sec.194H

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Saaksha Developers Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2976/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2976/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2977/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2978/Chny/2018 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito M/S Saaksha Developers Private Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Ward-6(1), No.1, Subbraya Avenue, C.P.Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aamcs-2275-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 37(1)

Accordingly, the case was reopened. It transpired that the assessee purchased 4.44 acres of land at Pallikarani and entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with AERL on 21-06-2009. A project called Mapleton Apartments consisting of 465 residential apartments in 6 blocks was conceived under the agreement ... charges, Ld. CIT(A) held that the same was on incorrect assumption of facts. It was clear the expenditure had nothing to do with JDA but it was for finding buyers for land as retained by the assessee. The payment was through banking channel after compliance of provision of Sec.194H