“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

Aranyak Developers Pravate Ltd., Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur

ITA 662/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 661 & 662/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Aranyak Developers Private Limited,….…….Appellant B-80, Sector-2A, Bipin Chandra Pal Sarani, Bidhan Nagar, Durgapur, Burdwan-713212, West Bengal [Pan:Aajca5219K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,….Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 19Th, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

land compensation. The assessee claimed the said amount as revenue expenditure. However, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the same observing that the original JDA was registered agreement, whereas the subsequent agreement was not registered with

Aranyak Developers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur.

ITA 661/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Section 147Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Hari Narayan Meena, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 2(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 56/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Which Was Being Handled By The Earlier Authorized Representative & The Information & Details Of The Case Had Been Provided To The Assessee Recently Only.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)

Section 143(3)

hearing on 21.12.2018. Conclusively, the AO made addition in the hands of the assessee by holding as under:- “6.1 Disallowance of claim toward JDA expenses: In the computation of capital gain, assessee has claimed a sum of Rs 60 lakh for JDA expenses. In reply to the notice ... assessee has submitted that he has has incurred incurr a total sum of Rs 60 lakh towards the JDA expenses in order to seythe above said agriculturat land to be converted in to 90A which is clearly state in the e sale deva of above mentioned property. The reply

Income Tax Officer, Koramangala Bangalore vs. Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore

ITA 653/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.653/Bang/2023 Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 130/BANG/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.653/Bang/2023 Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Mohammed Mujeeb Ur Rahaman, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 53A

record, are that these assessees along with 42 other co-owners of land admeasuring Acres 12.09 guntas entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s. Trendset Bharat Project Developers Pvt. Ltd. vide document No. 7033/2007 dated 04/04/2007 for development of the land. As per such agreement, the developer ... where is basis and the erstwhile developer Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos. 435, 438 & 441/Hyd/2022 relinquished all rights over the project and the JDA of 2016 superseded the earlier JDA of the year 2007. Learned Assessing Officer further observed that two landlords namely, Smt. Mulpuri Meena

ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Syed Hameeduddin, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 438/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 53A

ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Mohammed Samir Ur Rahaman, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 435/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 53A

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 979/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.979/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen…................…...……………....Appellant Iif Centre, 335 Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700107. [Pan:Aaatt6606M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26, 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 07.08.2023 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) Had Taken Legal Ground Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment & Also Contested The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer On Merits. The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To Para 5 Page 7 Of The Impugned Order From Where The Discussion On The Legal Ground Taken By The Assessee Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Commences & The

Section 147Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

DCIT -26(1), Mumbai vs. Shreyas Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR)

Section 2(47)(v)

levy of capital gains tax stood triggered upon execution of Joint Development Agreement (herein ITA Ns. 2404/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Shreyas Builders after ‘JDA’) during the relevant year, in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after the ‘Act’). 3. For better understanding ... under: “In real-estate development protects in India, Joint development agreement (IDA) with single or multiple owners has become preferred and effective option. Under JDA a portion of revenue or a portion of built up property is transferred to land-owner only after the sale of property or on completion

Chanderlal Bulchand Ambwani, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2017-18 Rameshlal Bullchand Ambwani Pr.Cit-3 A-71, Gayatri Bhavan Vs Ahmedabad. New Bunglow Area Patia Road, Kubernagar Ahmedabad. Pan : Abipa 4517 D Assessment Year :2017-18 Chanderlal Bulchand Ambwani Pr.Cit-3 B-120, Nr.Arya Samaj Mandir Vs Ahmedabad. Kubernagar, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatpa 1376 J

For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263oSection 54F

assessment records he noted that the assessee along with his brother (other assessee before us) had entered into a joint development agreement (“JDA”) with their own company viz. Gayari Infrastructure Ltd. (“GIL”) wherein they were directors and which ITA No.196/Ahd/2022 & 3 was engaged in development of real estate project ... Maitri Shiv Greens (“MSG”) on their own land; that initially they had entered into a JDA dated 21.1.2014 which was subsequently rectified on 14.10.2014.The terms of the agreement stated the assessee to receive consideration for the land provided for development as and when sale deeds were executed. The ld.CIT noted

Shri Rameshlal Bullchand Ambwani, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 196/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263oSection 54F

Jayanti Vasishta, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 687/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Kavitha P. CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 250Section 48

No.59 & 71/7, situated at Sarakki Village, Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk during 2002-03. In 2003-04, the assessee entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 27.12.2003 and one apartment built in that land has been sold during FY 2013-14 for a sale consideration of Rs.71,55,000. Capital ... Therefore indexed cost of acquisition has to be allowed from the previous year in which the land was converted to residential purpose. From the JDA, it was noted that the said apartment P2 Block I bearing municipal No. New 52/20 (old no.) located at 7th Main Road, Shakambi Nagar, Bengaluru

Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

ITA 595/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 9

appellant from A.Y. 2009- 10. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and directed to grant the registration to the JDA." Further, in the order passed by the Honule Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Jodhpur Development Authority (page 114-147 of paper ... appellant from A.Y. 2009- 10. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and directed to grant the registration to the JDA." K. Recent Development in case of Statutory Bodies 12 Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority vs. CIT(E) In the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs Gandhinagar Urban

Phool Chand Gupta(HUF), 1/90 Vidhyadhar Nagar vs. ITO, WD-4(2), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 393/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Jain (C.A.)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

rate of this part will be Rs 2852576.00(3565720- 20x3565720/100=2852576). Simmilar part of land was been previously under aquisition by govt. development authority JDA, which sill has the chance of beeing aquisation, hence for such,further reducing the worked out fair land of rate by 10%, Hecne the fair ... valuer of the assessee has allowed higher rebate for defects mentioned in the report like drain, nala, un levelled land and acquisition by JDA etc. However, there is no justification for allowing such higher rebate for some defects mentioned in the report. Even after allowing huge rebate, the value

K P Muhammed Ali, Calicut vs. ITO ( International Taxation), Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

also the common ground before us, the assessment of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the execution of a joint development agreement (JDA) (PB pgs. 88 - 116) and general power of attorney (GPA/PB pgs. 117-132) by the assessee with one, M/s. Plasma Developers Ltd., Bangalore, on 27.06.2011, in respect ... constructed, over a period of time, covering the entire land, envisaged to yield 75,818 sq.ft. of built up area – Annexure C to the JDA. The issue is if it indeed amounts to a transfer u/s. 2(47) of the Act. 3. The issue stands discussed and considered extensively

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chittoor vs. G Vijayasimha Reddy, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 376/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Y V Bhanu NarayanFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 2(13)Section 54F

erred in extending the benefit of Sec. 54F of the Act to the assessee even though the assessee had not used the receipts from JDA towards investment in property. 4. The Learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in stating that capital asset was held for a period over three years ... Business Income in hands of the appellant" whereas the land was purchased by the assessee on 19.05.2006 and the land was actually put for JDA on 21.08.2008( not on 17.03.2011) which is within three years from date of acquisition of property by the assessee. 2.1 The additional grounds raised

Mahesh Prasad Meena, Hoshangabad vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 174/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore20 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahesh Prasad Meena Pr. Cit-1 24, Fojdar Petrol Pump Bhopal Rasuliya Vs. Hoshangabad (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggpm 9969Q Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2023

Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Limited from various Khatedars for total sale consideration of Rs. 4,30,58,000/- was later on converted from agricultural to mixed uses by JDA on the application filed for conversion of the land by Sh. Kapil Bhakar, Power of Attorney holder of Sh. Pooran Mal Kanwat