← 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

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

aspect of second proviso to S. 2(15) of the Act, was also involved. 3.2 Similarly, in the case of Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) also similar view vide its order dated 30.09.2014 (PB 19- 42) that such development authorities were entitled to the benefit u/s 11 and the second proviso

Asha Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

ITA 22/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

total consideration of Rs. 2,32,500/- vide Receipt dated 22.06.2008 issued by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Revenue Residency and Allotment Letter from JDA along with Registered Deed issued

Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward -6(3), Jaipur

ITA 8/JPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

total consideration of Rs. 2,32,500/- vide Receipt dated 22.06.2008 issued by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Revenue Residency and Allotment Letter from JDA along with Registered Deed issued

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Vimal Chand Surana(HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

details mentioned on these seized documents the said land dealing took place in A.Y. 2008-09 i.e. year relevant to F.Y. in which JDA Patta was issued and shares of M/s Shri Kalyan Buildmart (P) Ltd. transferred. While deciding the appeals of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta & Others ... details mentioned on these seized documents the said land dealing took place in A.Y. 2008-09 i.e. year relevant to F.Y. in which JDA Patta was issued and shares of M/s Shri Kalyan Buildmart (P) Ltd. transferred. While deciding the appeals of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta & Others

Shri Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, Dausa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dausa

ITA 27/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

total consideration of Rs. 2,32,500/- vide Receipt dated 22.06.2008 issued by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Revenue Residency and Allotment Letter from JDA along with Registered Deed issued

Smt. Saroj Dhaka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur

ITA 1345/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

total consideration of Rs. 2,32,500/- vide Receipt dated 22.06.2008 issued by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Revenue Residency and Allotment Letter from JDA along with Registered Deed issued

Shri Kailash Chand Gehlot, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3) Jaipur

ITA 1279/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

total consideration of Rs. 2,32,500/- vide Receipt dated 22.06.2008 issued by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Revenue Residency and Allotment Letter from JDA along with Registered Deed issued

Shri Shrinivas Tripathi, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 471/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

total consideration of Rs. 2,32,500/- vide Receipt dated 22.06.2008 issued by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Revenue Residency and Allotment Letter from JDA along with Registered Deed issued

Shri Arvind Kumar Sengwa, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Ajmer

ITA 1123/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

total consideration of Rs. 2,32,500/- vide Receipt dated 22.06.2008 issued by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Revenue Residency and Allotment Letter from JDA along with Registered Deed issued

Virender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 131

relevant observations made by the lordship in this regard reads as under: - " 20 This being the case, and it being clear that the said JDA was never registered, since the JDA has no efficacy in the eye of law. obviously no "transfer" can be said to have taken place under ... this legal ground, it is unnecessary for us to go into the other questions decided by the High Court namely. whether under the JDA possession was or was not taken; whether only a licence was granted to develop the property; and whether the developers were or were not ready

Lal Singh Naderia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 59/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal(CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 50CSection 50C(3)Section 54

Indexed cost of acquisition as shown by the assessee. Rs. 2,38,853/- 2. Expesnes on account of patta and registration charges paid to JDA Rs. 9,53,640/- Long term capital gain Rs. 65,75,438/- Deduction u/s 54 Investment in new asset Rs. 32,09,810/- (Purchase consideration ... enquiries and came to know that Lease Deed could be issued due to above said error in recording the land in the name of JDA and hence he bargained for buying the land and the deal was finalized. Thereafter just few days back from the date of registration of Sale

ITO Ward 21(1), New Delhi vs. Rajdarbar Beverages Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3709/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Shri Khijda Trust, Junagadh vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 54/RJT/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And

M/S. Om Shiv Properties Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward -6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 306/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Gogra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 249Section 40A(3)Section 5

persons) 786, 787, total 5 788, 792, persons 793, 799, are there) 826, 827 2. SarwanLal, Ram Sahai 910, 912 29.4.2013 200000/- As per JDA norms s/o. KanhayaLal for development of (2 persons) land colonization scheme, specific area of Economic Weaker Section EWS is required to placed separately. And this

Madhu Kumar Patel, Hyderabad vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 395/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

income being reversal of deduction u/s 54F granted in A.Y 2012-13 is concerned, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had entered into JDA with the developer on 13th of January 2012 wherein the assessee was to receive 52 flats. However, there is no material on record to show ... that the assessee had actually received the said 52 ready built flats on the date of entering into JDA. Also, the assessee has not furnished occupancy certificate in respect of all 52 flats so as to reckon the actual date of acquisition of flats in the hands of assessee

Kolla Gowri, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

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

ITA 1039/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Kolla Gowri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, R/O.Chennai. Chittoor. Pan : Aoepg6939E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.A. Sumitra Nandan, Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Sumitra NandanFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50DSection 53A

information received, it is revealed that, the appellant, as a land owner entered into a joint development agreement cum general power of attorney (JDA) vide document No.1388/2012 dated 30/04/2012 for Rs.2,48,20,000/- in favour of Sri Dhanalakshmi Constructions (Developer/ Builder with reference to the undivided share of land ... Sy.No. 386-1, 384-2 & 385 situated at 77, Gandlapalle, Chittoor. 2.1. The appellant did not admit any capital gains on account of this JDA. Hence, in order to verify these issues, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 15.12.2016 and served upon the appellant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(3), Hyderabad vs. Mechineni Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 56/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2015-16 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Mechineni Projects (P) Central Circle 3(3) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecp4421H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.9.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee, A Company (Formerly Known As Pbr Projects Pvt. Ltd) Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Residential & Commercial Buildings, Originally Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Admitting A Total Income Of Rs.1,16,090/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Wase Conducted In M/S. Raghuram & Trishala Group On 21.11.2017 & Warrant In The Case Of M/S. Mechineni Projects (P) Ltd I.E., The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 132Section 153A

feet for Page 2 of 13 ITA 56 of 2021 Mechineni Projects P Ltd total company share of 1,18,895 sq.feet as per JDA and total indexed cost of acquisition is around Rs.16.00 crores. The Assessing Officer reproduced the relevant extract of the statement which is as under: “Q.No ... because there was a court case pending with High Court. Now, I have clarity and will offer capital gains. The company share as per JDA is 1,18,895 sq feet The approximate cost of construction is Rs 2,500 Hence the total consideration comes to Rs 29 72 crores

Galla Ravindranath HUF, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -2, Anantapur

ITA 435/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 45Section 47(2)

Assessee is, therefore, aggrieved and filed this appeal stating that as per the Joint Development Agreement (JDA), the builder agreed to construct villas and give 50% thereof to the owners and the assessee was under the bonafide impression that under section 45(5A) of the Act, the capital gains

Kirthisimhan Wijeyanayake, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1854/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50DSection 54

reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 14.03.2016. It transpired that the assessee along with Mr. Sunil Wijeyanayake entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s Foundation One Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (FIPL) on 11.06.2008 for construction of residential apartments on property owned by them. The owners were ... received any consideration in cash rather the consideration is in the shape of flats only. Therefore, on the date of entering into JDA with the developer, it could be concluded that the assessee made deemed investment to acquire the flats. The mere delay on the part of the developer

Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah V. Acit – 19(1) G-7, Sarvodaya Nagar Matru Mandir 1St Panjrapole Lane Mumbai – 400 007 C.P. Tank, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Andps5035M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Suchek Anchalia Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 143(2)Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI