“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

Narain Lal Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 744/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "A" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Shrey Associates, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

26. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, finding merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee as regards the only challenge to the addition of Rs

ITA 127/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM, SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (I.T.P.)For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 127/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Shrey Associates The ACIT S-33-34, JDA Shopping Centre, Vs. Circile-3, Jaipur. Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANFS4884M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

Debabrata Banerjee, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-34, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/KOL/2023[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2024AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A

R.C. Nirula & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6093/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshr.C. Nirula & Sons Huf, Vs. Asst. Commissioner A-2, Anand Niketan, Of Income Tax, New Delhi Circle-52(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaahr6050F Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Praveen Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

transferred in law, there is, in substance, a transfer of title in fact. R.C. Nirula & Sons HUF 23. A reading of the JDA in the present case would show that the owner continues to be the owner throughout the agreement, and has at no stage purported to transfer rights akin ... debt owed to the assessees by the developers and therefore, the assessees have not acquired any right to receive income under the JDA. This being so, no profits or gains "arose" from the transfer of a capital asset so as to attract Sections 45 and 48 of the Income

Meena Kovoor, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 223/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.223/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Meena Kovoor Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 4(1) Pan:Blhpk5744G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 156Section 50

appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that AO ought not to have solely relied on the JDA and two other sale deed documents executed in 2010 and held that the appellant along with her two sisters are the Legal Heirs. It is the Page ... Meena Kovoor submission of the AO ought not to have held that the property in question, which was given for JDA in 201 0, was ancestral property of the deceased-asses see and thereby the present assessee and her two married sisters as Legal Heirs to the assets

Divyanidhi Buildcon Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 616/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(3)

applied for conversion of 3.56 hectares out of the 4.09 hectares owned by it and paid conversion charges of Rs. 65,49,668/- to JDA, and as per terms of conversion 24,216 Sq yards of land was converted after land falling under road, facility and other utilities which became ... applied for conversion of 3.56 hectares out of the 4.09 hectares owned by it and paid conversion charges of Rs. 65,49,668/- to JDA, and as per terms of conversion 24,216 Sq yards of land was converted after land falling under road, facility and other utilities which became

Sudhakar Reddy Mettu, Usa vs. ACIT., International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 232/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Lekha Reddy Mettu Vs. Acit (International Usa/Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0166N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Acit (International Mettu, Usa/ Hyderabad Taxation-1) Pan:Bnhpm0447G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Akshay Surana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/05/2024

For Appellant: CA Akshay SuranaFor Respondent: : Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 54F

assessee was yet to receive the Villa/residential house and has not acquired legal title on such residential house/villa as on the date of JDA. Further, the assessee has not got legal title/registered the residential house/villa in her name till date while the section 54F stipulates that the assessee shall purchase ... No.9 at page 6 of the assessment order which to the following effect: 8. The contention of the learned AR is that as per JDA agreement entered between the assessee along with others on Page 7 of 10 ITA Nos 231 and 232 Lekha and Sudhakar Reddy Mettu

Lekha Reddy Mettu, Usa vs. ACIT., International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 231/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: CA Akshay SuranaFor Respondent: : Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 54F

Vidyavathi Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 295/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

date of acquisition of the capital asset for the purpose of 5 computation of capital gains. The Ld CIT observed on perusal of the JDA, that the clauses-12 & 13 of the Development Agreement wherein it was mentioned that the delivery of possession of the built up area shall entitle ... both components of undivided 10 share of land and ownership of building is necessary to complete title to a flat. Generally, when a JDA is entered into the owner of the land offers it to a developer with an understanding that he will retain undivided share of land proportionate

Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

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

ITA 292/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

Golam Iyajdani Mondal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(1), New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3479/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. G. S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 666/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 cuke Jodhpur Development Authority Deputy Commissioner of Vs. 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Income Tax, Exemption, Circle, Jodhpur. Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit ... account were attached, and the appellant appeared before the Id. CIT, Exemption for release of the bank account. It came to notice of the JDA that certain orders had been made by Id. CIT(A), for the year under consideration and no further action had been taken in the matter

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 665/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

Penupetruni Chinna Rao, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 401/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C(1)Section 54Section 54B

under: - 11) What is the basis of arriving at cost of construction of Rs.10.51.33,000/- for 33,200 sq.ft. Ans. In the original JDA, 34,425 sq.ft. construction was agreed to be done at a cost of Rs.7,00,00, 000/-. Since 2 years had elapsed taking into consideration ... this year during which the sale deed was executed. The assessee also assailed computation made by Ld. AO. It was submitted that JDA was entered on 30-11-2011 and possession of the property was given in April, 2012. The assessee received the consideration as per terms of JDA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Sh. Narayanappa Ramanna, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs. Shri Narayanappa Ramanna, Circle – 4(1)(1), 1 B, Narayanapur Village, Bengaluru. K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 016. Pan : Afmpr 3833 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. Ganesh S, Advocate. Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ganesh S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee, along with his four brothers, had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd., (NCC). By virtue of the JDA with NCC, assessee received 15 constructed apartment units. The AO completed the assessment under section ... apartment units (total claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act for 15 apartment units) for the reason that pursuant to the JDA, assessee had received multiple residential units and not a single residential unit. The provisions of section 54F of the Act was amended vide Finance (No.2

The Institute of India Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1230/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1229/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1228/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Savitri Leasing Finance Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 738/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR

appellant. The appellant has submitted in this regard as under- "During the year under consideration, the assessee has paid lease rent to JDA Rs.3,78,283/- and has also paid UD tax to Municipal Corporation of Rs. 2,20,505/- both totaling to Rs.5 ... common area, hence, the claim against house property is restricted to Rs 4,39,750/- (598788-159038). In support of the above, receipts from JDA and Municipal Corporation are available on Paper Book Page No.83." The appellant has raised the additional claim on the issue of lease rent and municipal

Late Sh. Birdi Chand Through Legal Heir Mukesh Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

residential ancestral property discussed in earlier paras, this claim of investment of Rs.54 Lakh is also disallowed. 16. Similarly, the appellant claimed investment in JDA, Plot at Rs. 16,22,143/- and JOA land at Rs.2,39,396/- which was disallowed as this investment/ construction was also beyond the time