← 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

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

agreement. f) The argument of the Ld. A.R. is that as per clause 1.3 of the development agreement at page no.6 para 1.3 of JDA dated 22.6.2013 which clearly states as follows:- “1.3 The owner shall not revoke the permission, so granted during the subsistence of this agreement till completion ... expertise of development and marketing of real estate project. 15.2 He also drew our attention to the relevant clauses of JDA and submitted that as per JDA, the assessee would retain legal possession, domain and control over the Schedule Property till the same is developed and sold either in whole

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

agreement. f) The argument of the Ld. A.R. is that as per clause 1.3 of the development agreement at page no.6 para 1.3 of JDA dated 22.6.2013 which clearly states as follows:- “1.3 The owner shall not revoke the permission, so granted during the subsistence of this agreement till completion ... expertise of development and marketing of real estate project. 15.2 He also drew our attention to the relevant clauses of JDA and submitted that as per JDA, the assessee would retain legal possession, domain and control over the Schedule Property till the same is developed and sold either in whole

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

agreement. f) The argument of the Ld. A.R. is that as per clause 1.3 of the development agreement at page no.6 para 1.3 of JDA dated 22.6.2013 which clearly states as follows:- “1.3 The owner shall not revoke the permission, so granted during the subsistence of this agreement till completion ... expertise of development and marketing of real estate project. 15.2 He also drew our attention to the relevant clauses of JDA and submitted that as per JDA, the assessee would retain legal possession, domain and control over the Schedule Property till the same is developed and sold either in whole

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

trade in his books. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the sale of units by land owner in a project developed on JDA basis will attract taxation u/s 45(2) of I T Act only after it is sold by a registered deed ... receive the possession of 2 to 3 apartments. Q.No.14 Please explain in detail the aspects of the JDA with G-Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. Ans. The JDA was entered into in the FY 2010-11 between myself in the individual capacity as a owner and M/s. G-Corp Homes

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

trade in his books. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the sale of units by land owner in a project developed on JDA basis will attract taxation u/s 45(2) of I T Act only after it is sold by a registered deed ... receive the possession of 2 to 3 apartments. Q.No.14 Please explain in detail the aspects of the JDA with G-Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. Ans. The JDA was entered into in the FY 2010-11 between myself in the individual capacity as a owner and M/s. G-Corp Homes

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

trade in his books. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the sale of units by land owner in a project developed on JDA basis will attract taxation u/s 45(2) of I T Act only after it is sold by a registered deed ... receive the possession of 2 to 3 apartments. Q.No.14 Please explain in detail the aspects of the JDA with G-Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. Ans. The JDA was entered into in the FY 2010-11 between myself in the individual capacity as a owner and M/s. G-Corp Homes

M/S. Anupam Ranjan (HUF), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 54Section 54F

assessee is a HUF, being a co- owner of property bearing Survey No.861, Khata No.72, Tauzi No.205, Thana Phulwari, Patna District entered into JDA on 11.1.2007 for construction of residential flats with M/s. Ashiana Marketing & Construction Pvt. Ltd., No.414, Ashiana Towers, 4th Floor, Exhibition Road, PO GPO, Gandhi Maidan ... appeal before us by way of aforementioned grounds. 4. The Ld. A.R. reiterated that the assessee’s income has to be computed from the JDA as only under head “Long term Capital gain” and there is no short-term capital gain as the gain arised consequent to the assessee entered

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 405/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

Rs.1,05,00,000 being his share of 14% of cash received from Mr. D V Harish, MD of Davanam Constructions with whom a JDA is being entered into by the partnership firm. The PCIT noticed that the AO has not conducted any enquiry with regard to the cash paid ... examine Mr.Harish Davanam;. 4. The learned PCIT has erred in stating that the Assessing officer did not make any enquiry in relation to the JDA transaction without appreciating that the Assessing officer was having complete information/knowledge about the said transaction; 5. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 404/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

Rs.1,05,00,000 being his share of 14% of cash received from Mr. D V Harish, MD of Davanam Constructions with whom a JDA is being entered into by the partnership firm. The PCIT noticed that the AO has not conducted any enquiry with regard to the cash paid ... examine Mr.Harish Davanam;. 4. The learned PCIT has erred in stating that the Assessing officer did not make any enquiry in relation to the JDA transaction without appreciating that the Assessing officer was having complete information/knowledge about the said transaction; 5. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 403/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

Rs.1,05,00,000 being his share of 14% of cash received from Mr. D V Harish, MD of Davanam Constructions with whom a JDA is being entered into by the partnership firm. The PCIT noticed that the AO has not conducted any enquiry with regard to the cash paid ... examine Mr.Harish Davanam;. 4. The learned PCIT has erred in stating that the Assessing officer did not make any enquiry in relation to the JDA transaction without appreciating that the Assessing officer was having complete information/knowledge about the said transaction; 5. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds

Biswajit Bose, New Panvel vs. Pr CIT -1, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and order of Ld

ITA 1322/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shree Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbiswajit Bose B103, Balaji Niwas, Plot No-107-108, Sector-8, New Panvel, Panvel-410206 Pan No. Acxpb9332K ....Appellant Pr Cit-1 Thane Room No-7, 6The Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-400604 ...Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma & S.SriramFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 263

this case at the time of adjudication of the agreement there was no monitory benefit being accrued to the assessee. As per the JDA, land was no transfer only a right to development was handed over to the developer and capital gains in the hand of the assessee can only

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 675/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)

fully and truly all the material facts necessary for making assessment. 3. However, the facts are clearly distinguishable. The quoted case was that of JDA and such JDA was in knowledge of AO and the latter did not invoke the provisions of sec. 45(2) of the I.T Act while ... income. However, subsequently the AO invoked the provisions of sec. 45(2) of the Act while assessing the income u/s.147of the Act, considering the JDA as transfer of asset. The Hon'ble Court held that the reasons recorded by the AO mentioned only about the incidence of capital gain

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

Trans Global Power P. Ltd. in which Shri R. Muniraju was one of the directors. During the course of search, a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 11.12.2009 which was executed between the assessee and M/s. Brundavan Constructions (Developer) for a development of properties situated in Arehalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore ... said seized document does not pertain to Trans Global Power Ltd. but to the assessee. The AO of the assessee after examining the JDA and satisfied that the same belongs to the assessee initiated proceedings u/s.153C. The AO on examination of the JDA was of the view capital gains arises

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Merit Magnum Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Sh. Mahiita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 68Section 69CSection 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

Thursday. On the said page along with the noting and jotting of '6 Cr cash exp', there are references to JDA, Security Deposit (SD) amount spent up-to 31st March 09 and reference to seeking of funds. However, there is no period of year mentioned in the printed diary ... relation to expenses having been actually incurred in cash. This noting was made for getting funds in the form of Security Deposit from the JDA partner. It is also evident that in the same page in expenses spent up-to 31st March 09. Therefore, these expenses pertains to period ending

Parthiban Kalavathi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1131/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Parthiban Kalavathi, The Asst. Commissioner Of 74, Pidariar Koil Street, Vs. Income Tax, George Town, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Cxrpk-1062-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, In Ita

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

interconnected issues: I) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O in making assessment on surplus arising from Joint Development Agreement (JDA) as business profit as against the assessee treating the same under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”. II) The CIT(A) erred in confirming ... action of A.O in rejecting the claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act pertaining to multiple units obtained under the JDA in the said computation under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”. 2. For this, the assessee has raised various grounds, but the issue is interconnected and classified into

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3205/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

from the year ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 4 :: 1993 and advanced to subsidiary companies for business purpose. The assessee has entered into a JDA with M/s.Unitech Cestos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., for development of the property on 22.05.2008 and started generating revenue from AY 2011-12. Therefore, it is incorrect ... taxmann.com 118 (Delhi). As regards, disallowance of interest expenditure for non-commencement of business, the assessee submitted that the company has entered into JDA for development of 70 acres of land on 22.05.2008 and income from the said project has been ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 17 :: recognized from

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3203/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

from the year ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 4 :: 1993 and advanced to subsidiary companies for business purpose. The assessee has entered into a JDA with M/s.Unitech Cestos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., for development of the property on 22.05.2008 and started generating revenue from AY 2011-12. Therefore, it is incorrect ... taxmann.com 118 (Delhi). As regards, disallowance of interest expenditure for non-commencement of business, the assessee submitted that the company has entered into JDA for development of 70 acres of land on 22.05.2008 and income from the said project has been ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 17 :: recognized from

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3202/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

from the year ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 4 :: 1993 and advanced to subsidiary companies for business purpose. The assessee has entered into a JDA with M/s.Unitech Cestos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., for development of the property on 22.05.2008 and started generating revenue from AY 2011-12. Therefore, it is incorrect ... taxmann.com 118 (Delhi). As regards, disallowance of interest expenditure for non-commencement of business, the assessee submitted that the company has entered into JDA for development of 70 acres of land on 22.05.2008 and income from the said project has been ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 17 :: recognized from

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3201/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

from the year ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 4 :: 1993 and advanced to subsidiary companies for business purpose. The assessee has entered into a JDA with M/s.Unitech Cestos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., for development of the property on 22.05.2008 and started generating revenue from AY 2011-12. Therefore, it is incorrect ... taxmann.com 118 (Delhi). As regards, disallowance of interest expenditure for non-commencement of business, the assessee submitted that the company has entered into JDA for development of 70 acres of land on 22.05.2008 and income from the said project has been ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 17 :: recognized from

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

case of UKN Properties Ltd. has stated that no valuation of shares was done. v. Shares are issued to the related party vi. The JDA submitted by the assessee as a supporting document for valuation of shares cannot be accepted as it is a mere agreement with out of uncertainty ... correct. It was also submitted that it is not correct on the part of the lower authorities to not take into consideration the JDA entered into by the assessee by stating that it is contingent. Without prejudice the ld AR submitted that provisions of section 56(2)(viib) cannot