“JDA”

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

Computed Long Term Capital Gains 1,68,60,550 B Exemption Claimed u/s 54 Two Residential Apartments situated 1 1,26,00,000 in JDA Property. One Residential Property situated at No. 580, 6th Cross 3rd Main, 2 65,51,000 Gokulam 3rd Stage, Devaraja Mohalla Mysore. Total ... 12/1, 13th Cross, V.V. Mohalla, Mysore for construction of Residential Apartments. The consideration received by assessee under the JDA was fixed at Rs.2.62 Crores, out of which the developer agreed to pay Rs.1.36 Crores by Cheque and the balance Rs.1.26 Crores by way of two, 3 bedroom flats

Sri Hanumanthiah, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

assessee has raised following issues:- a) Validity of reopening of assessment b) Validity of assessing long term capital gain upon entering Joint Development Agreement (JDA). Sri Hanumanthiah, Bangalore Page 2 of 12 At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. did not press grounds relating to validity of reopening ... income for the year under consideration on 16.9.2010. Subsequently, information was received by the A.O. that the assessee has executed a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with a builder named M/s. Brigade Enterprises Ltd. As per the JDA, the assessee has allowed above said builder to develop residential apartments

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

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

exempt from capital gains in view of s. 2 (14) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly." 10. Moreover, in the instant case, the JDA was also finally cancelled vide Deed of Cancelation dated 5.5.2015 and copy of which is available at pages 240 to 254 of the compilation ... refundable security received by the assessee was returned back to the developer. Through JDA, though it was agreed to hand over possession of land to the developer, but in fact possession was never handed over to the developer for further activities Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore vs. Sri Sai Lakshmi Industries Private Limited, Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

against order dated 29.03.2019 of CIT(A)-14, Bengaluru, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA for short) dated: 3.4.2013 with M/s Assetz Whitefield Homes P.Ltd., (hereinafter called Developer, for short) and the same was registered before the Sub- Registrar ... various Survey Numbers situated at Kannamangala Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Dist (hereinafter referred to as ‘the property’). As per the JDA, the parties were to share what is defined as “Project Revenue” between the Developer and the assessee in the ratio of ITA No.1624/Bang/2019 Page

Sri. Sandeep Srinivas, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Appellant has agricultural land converted for residential use and given under the JDA agreement for Rs.73,93,008/- 2. development of residential sites. For purposes of calculating long term capital gain on the land transferred to the developer ... sale agreement was then cancelled on 18/11/2014 and assessee refunded the entire amount to the purchaser by cheque. 5. Subsequently, assessee entered into JDA with M/s. Artha Real estate Corp.Ltd on 18/11/2014. The said document was rehistered and assessee received Rs.1,50,00,000/- as refundable advance from the purchaser

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

debt owed to the assessee or land owners. Hence, the assessee or land owners have not acquired any right to receive income under the JDA. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. ITA No.295, 296 & 297/Bang/2020 Page 21 of 27 44. The above

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

debt owed to the assessee or land owners. Hence, the assessee or land owners have not acquired any right to receive income under the JDA. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. ITA No.295, 296 & 297/Bang/2020 Page 21 of 27 44. The above

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

debt owed to the assessee or land owners. Hence, the assessee or land owners have not acquired any right to receive income under the JDA. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. ITA No.295, 296 & 297/Bang/2020 Page 21 of 27 44. The above

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

exempt from capital gains in view of s. 2 (14) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly." 10. Moreover, in the instant case, the JDA was also finally cancelled vide Deed of Cancelation dated 5.5.2015 and copy of which is available at pages 240 to 254 of the compilation ... refundable security received by the assessee was returned back to the developer. Through JDA, though it was agreed to hand over possession of land to the developer, but in fact possession was never handed over to the developer for further activities of development. Therefore, there was no transfer

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

exempt from capital gains in view of s. 2 (14) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly." 10. Moreover, in the instant case, the JDA was also finally cancelled vide Deed of Cancelation dated 5.5.2015 and copy of which is available at pages 240 to 254 of the compilation ... refundable security received by the assessee was returned back to the developer. Through JDA, though it was agreed to hand over possession of land to the developer, but in fact possession was never handed over to the developer for further activities of development. Therefore, there was no transfer

Shri. P. Krishna Reddy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

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

which are nowhere mentioned in the decisions; 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that flats received as share under a JDA are eligible for deduction u/s 54F, as the transaction is not related to the number of flats but to the percentage of built-up area ... delete from or amend the ground of appeal.” The brief facts of the case: 4. The assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with LGCL Urban Home (India) LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership on 30.07.2014 to develop property bearing No.234/134/134 BBMP Khata No.134, measuring 28.1 guntas situated

Shri Krishna Prasad Mikklineni, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee along with other co-owners has entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 30.3.2009 with M/s. Arun Shelters Pvt. Ltd for development of land belonging to them. All the co-owners are entitled to 26% of the super-built ... relevant observations made and decision taken by the Tribunal in the above said case are extracted below:- “4. Clause 1 of the JDA provides as follows: "1) PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT: 1.1) The Owner is in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property. The Owner hereby authorize the Promoter

Shashikala Korvadi Ramachandra, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarismt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

presumption that the Stamp Duty paid at 1% without appreciating the fact that the stamp duty id for registration of the JDA agreement was at the rate of 2%. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the tamp Duty paid for the registration ... JDA was at the rate of 2% according to which the deemed consideration amounts to Rs. 67,47,000/- as against presumed consideration of Rs. 1,34,94,000/- determined by the CIT(A) based on the assumed rate of Stamp Duty at 1%. 5. The Appellant craves leave

Bellandur Chikkagurappa Jayaramreddy, Bengaluru vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

exchange of the entire portion of the Property B'. 10. According to the terms and conditions of the MOU, the land offered for JDA measuring 3 Acres 22 Guntas was amended to be 1 Acre and 22 Guntas and the assessee and his son agreed to execute a Deed ... gains as declared by him was correct and complete. In a nut-shell, the submissions made are as under:- (i) On execution of the JDA dated 01-03-2013, the Appellant transferred 62% of 1 Acre out of the Property 'A' to the Developer by virtue of operation of Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. N G Balu Reddy HUF, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

assessable in the assessment year 2005-06 ignoring the fact that the assessee (HUF) itself has offered the capital gains on account of said JDA at Rs.90,44,260/- for the Asst. Year 2009-10 in the Income Tax return filed on 28.03.2013. 3. On the facts of the case ... assessable in the assessment year 2005-06 ignoring the fact that the assessee (HUF) itself has offered the capital gains on account of said JDA of Rs.90,44,260/- for the Asst. Year 2009-10 in the Income Tax return filed on 28.03.2013. 4. On the facts of the case

M/S. T V Aleyas Engineers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Bangalore

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita 1667/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11

claimed interest paid by the developer on behalf the assessee to the original advancer in the absence of a such clause in the JDA. 6. The learned CIT(A) is erred in holding the that the documents found during the course of search contradicts, whereas it was supporting the findings ... received the advance of 3 Crores given by M/s Somayaji Holdings for purchase of the same piece of land before the assessee entered into JDA with another. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding interest component of 2.75 as additional consideration, apart from 22.30 Crores, paid