“JDA”

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Original Scrutiny Proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act before the Assessing Officer. Firstly, certain information relating to AYs 2009-10 to 2015-16 (including JDA dated 28-3-2011, ITRs and audited financial statements) were called for u/s 133C of the Act for verification by prescribed authority. 2.2 On filing ... learned AO. 2.11 On scrutiny of the records of the appellant, all the above mentioned Authorities have found that the income received from the JDA by the appellant as a Landowner pursuant to JDA terms, is long- term capital gains taxable u/s.45(1) of the Act. On completion of scrutiny

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Original Scrutiny Proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act before the Assessing Officer. Firstly, certain information relating to AYs 2009-10 to 2015-16 (including JDA dated 28-3-2011, ITRs and audited financial statements) were called for u/s 133C of the Act for verification by prescribed authority. 2.2 On filing ... learned AO. 2.11 On scrutiny of the records of the appellant, all the above mentioned Authorities have found that the income received from the JDA by the appellant as a Landowner pursuant to JDA terms, is long- term capital gains taxable u/s.45(1) of the Act. On completion of scrutiny

Shri. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

that consideration accruing cannot be evaluated as the subject matter is not in existence and therefore cannot be ascertained as on the date of JDA as it would amount to calculation of discounted figures on an unknown value for a non-existed asset and in capable of being determined. Therefore ... business premises of the assessee. During the survey, the assessee was asked to explain the present situation on the matter of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) entered on 7.5.2009 with M/s. Sriram Properties Ltd. for construction of residential flats on land owned by assessee measuring 2 acres and 5 guntas situated

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

appreciate that the appellant is eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Act for the entire capital gains that arouse on the JDA on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law in holding that the capital gain ... case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the transfer of the property takes place upon execution of JDA and handing over of the property and hence the capital gains is to be charged in assessment year 20 12 - 13 on the facts and circumstances

Dr. P. Dayananda Pai, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2005-06 Dr. P Dayananda Pai, Vs. Dcit, 10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Circle – 2(2), Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Abapp 4418 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.12.2019 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is Also Referred To As “Pdp” In This Order. He Is In The Business Of Real Estate For Over Four Decades. He Carried On Business Of Real Estate In His Individual Capacity. From Ay 95-96 He Transferred All The Rights In Properties Under Various Agreements To A Partnership Firm “M/S.P.Dayanand Pai”, Vide Deed Of Partnership Dated 1-4-1994. In This Firm Mr.P.Dayanand Pai & His Brother Mr.P.Satish & 9 Other Individuals Were Partners. Thereafter By A Deed Of Partnership Dated 9.6.2000 The Firm “M/S.P.Dayanada Pai” Merged Its Business With Another Partnership Firm “M/S.Canara Housing Development Company” (Hereinafter Page 2 Of 39

cash end the same was paid to Sri. Jayadev the land lord with whom M/s. 5LV Housing Development Corporation had entered into JDA as reflected in the DTTE d) About 20 cases were surveyed and all of them have accepted that the entries as per DTTE are genuine and have

Mr.Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

other than the Non- Refundable Deposit by adopting the Construction Rate of Rs.2,000/- per Sq. Ft. for built-up area received under the JDA which is more than the rata prescribed in the Notification dated 3.7.2013 bearing No.CVC 24 of 2013-14 issued by the Central Valuation Committee constituted ... grounds are dismissed. 9. Ground Nos.10 & 11 are with regard to the upholding assessment of the long-term capital gain arising out of the JDA dated 31.1.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15. Even though the possession of property bearing No.123, Infantry Road, Bengaluru said to be a joint development

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

acknowledgements for having given a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to Sri. Krishna Reddy and Sri Jagadish. This payment was made for a purpose of JDA. The assessee had filed a copy of the JDA with Sri. Krishna Reddy and Others and no further details were furnished. According ... paid on 18.05.2006 to Sri. Krishna Reddy. The A.O. observed that the above sum of Rs.23,45,000/- paid towards the JDA is not reflected in the balance sheet of the appellant. The A.0 proposed to treat it has unexplained investment and in reply thereof the assessee stated that

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind- Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

acknowledgements for having given a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to Sri. Krishna Reddy and Sri Jagadish. This payment was made for a purpose of JDA. The assessee had filed a copy of the JDA with Sri. Krishna Reddy and Others and no further details were furnished. According ... paid on 18.05.2006 to Sri. Krishna Reddy. The A.O. observed that the above sum of Rs.23,45,000/- paid towards the JDA is not reflected in the balance sheet of the appellant. The A.0 proposed to treat it has unexplained investment and in reply thereof the assessee stated that

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind- Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

acknowledgements for having given a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to Sri. Krishna Reddy and Sri Jagadish. This payment was made for a purpose of JDA. The assessee had filed a copy of the JDA with Sri. Krishna Reddy and Others and no further details were furnished. According ... paid on 18.05.2006 to Sri. Krishna Reddy. The A.O. observed that the above sum of Rs.23,45,000/- paid towards the JDA is not reflected in the balance sheet of the appellant. The A.0 proposed to treat it has unexplained investment and in reply thereof the assessee stated that

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

acknowledgements for having given a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to Sri. Krishna Reddy and Sri Jagadish. This payment was made for a purpose of JDA. The assessee had filed a copy of the JDA with Sri. Krishna Reddy and Others and no further details were furnished. According ... paid on 18.05.2006 to Sri. Krishna Reddy. The A.O. observed that the above sum of Rs.23,45,000/- paid towards the JDA is not reflected in the balance sheet of the appellant. The A.0 proposed to treat it has unexplained investment and in reply thereof the assessee stated that

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

acknowledgements for having given a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to Sri. Krishna Reddy and Sri Jagadish. This payment was made for a purpose of JDA. The assessee had filed a copy of the JDA with Sri. Krishna Reddy and Others and no further details were furnished. According ... paid on 18.05.2006 to Sri. Krishna Reddy. The A.O. observed that the above sum of Rs.23,45,000/- paid towards the JDA is not reflected in the balance sheet of the appellant. The A.0 proposed to treat it has unexplained investment and in reply thereof the assessee stated that

Smt Munilakshamamma, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-7, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

solitary issue argued by the learned AR is whether the assessee is liable for capital gains for Joint Development Agreement (JDA) entered between the assessee and M/s.Ramky Infrastructure Limited. Several grounds are raised. The assessee has also raised two additional grounds vide application dated 31.08.2020. All the grounds, except additional ... Joint Development Agreement-cum-Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2011 executed by the assessee and M/s.Ramky Infrastructure Limited was found and seized. As per the JDA executed by the assessee with the builder/developer, land measuring 7 acres 25 guntas owned by her was allowed to be developed into a residential

Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

bearing municipal No.19, 9th Main Roa, Rajmahal Vilas, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the property’). They entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s. Vista Spaces Estates LLP. As per the terms of the JDA dated 20.07.20214, the assessees Shri. Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao and Shri. Nagaraj Desirazu ... Residential Building.” 4. In the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2015-16, Shri. Nagaraj Desirazu computed capital gain on account of JDA as follows: Rs. INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS : Rs Part Sale consideration received on Development of Plot situated at Bangalore 19285000 Less Cost of land with indexation

Nagaraj Desirazu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

bearing municipal No.19, 9th Main Roa, Rajmahal Vilas, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the property’). They entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s. Vista Spaces Estates LLP. As per the terms of the JDA dated 20.07.20214, the assessees Shri. Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao and Shri. Nagaraj Desirazu ... Residential Building.” 4. In the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2015-16, Shri. Nagaraj Desirazu computed capital gain on account of JDA as follows: Rs. INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS : Rs Part Sale consideration received on Development of Plot situated at Bangalore 19285000 Less Cost of land with indexation

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

project. It was also the plea of the assessee that it was meant to negotiate for assigning the agreement of sale and JDA to Shri. Jitendra Virwani. In fact, in answer to question No.15 as to the reason why the seized ITA Nos.352 to 357/Bang/2020 Page 16 of 23 document

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

project. It was also the plea of the assessee that it was meant to negotiate for assigning the agreement of sale and JDA to Shri. Jitendra Virwani. In fact, in answer to question No.15 as to the reason why the seized ITA Nos.352 to 357/Bang/2020 Page 16 of 23 document

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

project. It was also the plea of the assessee that it was meant to negotiate for assigning the agreement of sale and JDA to Shri. Jitendra Virwani. In fact, in answer to question No.15 as to the reason why the seized ITA Nos.352 to 357/Bang/2020 Page 16 of 23 document

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

project. It was also the plea of the assessee that it was meant to negotiate for assigning the agreement of sale and JDA to Shri. Jitendra Virwani. In fact, in answer to question No.15 as to the reason why the seized ITA Nos.352 to 357/Bang/2020 Page 16 of 23 document

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

project. It was also the plea of the assessee that it was meant to negotiate for assigning the agreement of sale and JDA to Shri. Jitendra Virwani. In fact, in answer to question No.15 as to the reason why the seized ITA Nos.352 to 357/Bang/2020 Page 16 of 23 document