“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

Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Sangli

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

ITA 1619/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1619/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Umesh MaliFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 147Section 44Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Raj Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 341/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250

found by the Assessing Officer (“the Ld. AO”) that the assessee Shri Raj Kumar Singh had entered into and registered a Land development agreement (“JDA”) with M/s Singh Engicon (India Pvt. Ltd.) in the financial year 2015-16 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. On perusal of the land

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 782/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

under the head Profits & gains of business or profession based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA and secondly the ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that the significant risk and rewards of ownership had already been transferred under the JDA and thus income should ... survey and post survey enquiries, it is found that the assessee has entered into Joint Development Agreement as tabulated below:- Sl. Name of JDA with Area Revenue No the Concern Sharing 01 Anushka Realty DNR 75685 sq.ft 20.5% CorporationPvt. Ltd 02 Anushka Realty Purvankara 20 acres 29.55% Projects

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 781/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 780/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 779/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Anushka Estates, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 761/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Anushka Estates, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 760/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

under the head Profits & gains of business or profession based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA and secondly the ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that the significant risk and rewards of ownership had already been transferred under the JDA and thus income should ... under the head income from Business which was computed based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA. II. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO, ignoring

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Anushka Estates, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 759/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Jashvantlal Sakarchand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1877/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms Suchitra Kamblejashvantlal Sakarchand Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 1350, Khijdavalo Vas, Ward-5(2)(2), Mithakhali, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380006. [Pan :Bkyps3918 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Adjournment Application Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Adjournment ApplicationFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT And Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

where, though title may not be transferred in law, there is, in substance, a transfer of title in fact. 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

Ram Kishore Seth, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1154/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmalate Shri Ram Kishore Seth, Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir, Smt. Rama Seth), New Delhi. Nd-63, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Ejips0799P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Order : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 16.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 24Section 54Section 54FSection 68

floor. If the building is organically one, it shall still form one residential house. The assessee in the present case has entered into JDA with builder for construction of multiple floors in the residential house. Thus, vertical structuring of the building should not come in the way of considering

Nandkumar Baban Saste, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 99/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

After this Declaration before the AO and during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant filed a submission stating that he entered into a JDA with M/s Aradhaya Properties and M/s. Ramsons Associates for development of property situated at Borhadewadi Gat No.269, Haveli Taluk, Pune admeasuring 5050 sq.ft. According

Rajendra Rampal, Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2167/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

prayed to be deleted. [Relief claimed - Deletion of Addition of Rs.2,88,22,020/-]. 3. Your Appellant submits that as the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) itself has been cancelled by virtue of a Settlement executed between the Developers and Landowners so no addition can be made on that ground ... Shri Ajay Pratap Singh Rio Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh and Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, S/o Lt. Ajay Pratap Singh, had executed a Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) dated 28.08.2015 and also a General Power of Attorney dated 31.08.2015 in respect of total land measuring 0.7680 decimal in aggregate with two storied commuted

Mannequin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 586/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Mannequin Pharmaceuticals Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Private Limited B-26 & 26(1), Chandaka Industrial Estate 751024 Pan No. : Aajcm 6157 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.08.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In The Assessee’S Appeal Was In Respect Of The Validation Of The Share Market Value Of Rs.4,900/- Equity Shares. It Was Submission That The Assesse Had Allowed The Discounted Cash Flow Method At Provided In Rule 11 Ua Of The Act Of The Income Tax Rules. 3. It Was Submission That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Held That The Fair Market Value Of The Unquoted Equity Shares Was To Be Determined By Merchant Banker. It Was Submission That Consequently As The Dcf Method Valuation

For Appellant: Shri P.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 56Section 56(2)

Chartered Accountant using DCF method of valuation. The assessee has projected its income, which according to the Id. AR, is substantiated by the JDA entered into by the assessee. We notice that the lower authorities have rejected the DCF method of valuation on the ground that the same

Dasari Sai Annapurna L/R of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 583/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16) Dasari Sai Annapurna Vs. Assistant Commissioner L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Of Income Tax, Krishna Reddy, Central Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aeipd0990C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28/03/2022, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The 2 Dasai Sai Annapurna L/R Of Late Dasari Gopi Krishna Reddy Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 45Section 54F

17/05/2021, i.e., after commencement of the assessment proceedings in March, 2021. On merits, it was submitted by her that though the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was entered into and registered on 30/05/2014, but the construction was delayed and the project could be completed only in the year of 2018. Also

Manohar Reddy Cheruku, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1625/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1625/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Manohar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Cheruku, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aelpc8785R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)Section 53A

assessee, along with Shri Ch Anand Reddy and Shri M. Sahodar Reddy (hereinafter collectively called “the landowners”), had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) dated 19.01.2016 with the developer. As per the terms of the JDA, in lieu of land measuring 676 sq. yards, the landowners were entitled ... receive 1853 sq. ft. of built-up area. The Ld. AO held that the execution of JDA on 19.01.2016 constituted a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and that capital gains under section 45(1) of the Act arose in the year of execution

Amit Kumar Verma, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6(1), Patna

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

ITA 357/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

filing of the return, the return of income could not be filed electronically. The Ld. AO further noted that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) had been executed by the assessee with Ambe Bhagwati Marketing Construction Private Limited. The Ld. AO perused the replies filed by the assessee ... held that the 'transfer' as far as the landowner is concerned takes place on the date of entering into the JDA on the ground that possession given to a developer would also fall within the ambit of the 'transfer under Section 53A of the TOPA read with Section

Roopa Jagadish, Mysuru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 972/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran &

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 55A

have erred in not appreciating that the Appellant had offered Capital gains on the property transferred under the JDA to tax in AY 2008-09 which had attained finality. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) and AO have erred in not appreciating that the cost of construction ... determine the cost after taking into consideration all the aspects with regard to determination of computation of capital gain on sale of land under JDA dated 31/01/2008 in the A/Y 2008-09. In effect the rate adopted by the Ld CIT has not been accepted by this Tribunal

Lumino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2083/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

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

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM