“ JDA ”

202 Taxmann 531 · 2011 · High Court

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

Potla Nageswara Rao v. DCIT

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.

365 ITR 249 · 2014 · High Court

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

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.

421 ITR 46 · 2020 · Supreme Court

14 Taxmann.com 120 · 2011 · High Court

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

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

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.

115 Taxmann.com 5 · 2020 · Supreme Court

Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (

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.

411 ITR 533 · 2019 · High Court

Smt. Shanta Vidya Sagar Annam v. Income Tax Officer

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.

170 Taxmann.com 754 · High Court

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

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

Shri K.G Subbarama Setty, Bangalore vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) Bangalore, C R Building

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

with the developer on 01/03/2007 for a land measuring 13 Acres 24 Guntas situated in Basavanpura Village, Bengaluru. As per the terms of the JDA, ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 6 of 33 the landowners transferred ... Super Built up Area in the form of villas. The assesses’s share in the flats to be received as part of the JDA was 15% of the Super Built up Area (SBA). The capital gain arising out of the JDA signed with the developer was assessed

K A Sujit Chandan, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Bengaluru.-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 1296/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee was to receive 37% of the revenue arising from the sale of the developed

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 1286/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Mathikere vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 1028/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

DCIT, CC- 2(1), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

ITA 165/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru, Bmtc Building, Koramangala vs. Gtr Aluminium Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Monish Sowkhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

Chartered Accountant using DCF method of valuation. The assessee has projected its income, which according to the ld. 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

Neha Jain, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1275/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Neha Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan:Asnpj2794B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Siddharth Toshnival राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rajnaj Agarwala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Neha Jain (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.06.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: : Shri Rajnaj Agarwala, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 45Section 69A

Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) observed that the assessee had not declared capital gain arising from an alleged Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.1,76,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act and passed reassessment order ... sole issue in dispute is the addition of Rs.1,53,45,000/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on the allegation of a JDA. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has never entered into any JDA. Further, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the reasons recorded

Lalmuni Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 18/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 48Section 50CSection 55

cost of improvement taken by A.O. but as per valuation report cost of improvement taken Rs 200000. 4. As per JDA the projects should complete in all respect within 2 years 6 months from date of approval of PRDA/PMC Map approval but it still work in progress this date ... adjudicate the ground relating to indexation benefit and the addition was made by invoking section 50C of the Act for the Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The assessee had received ITA No.: 18/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Lalmuni Devi. total sale consideration of ₹ 64,02,144/- and the entire sale proceeds

Dipesh Chandrakant Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 884/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Sukhadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 199CSection 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1178/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

ITA 1177/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Chand Saini, Shri Rajesh Kumar and Shri Ganga Singh Tanwar. In this business, these persons purchased the agriculture land and there after applies to JDA for conversion of land for residential and commercial purpose. After approval of township plan and map by JDA, they started the development of land

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

ITA 1176/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Tanwar. In this business, these persons purchased the agriculture land and there after applies to JDA for conversion of land for residential and commercial purpose. After approval of township plan and map by JDA, they started the development of land i.e. construction of road, lying of water supply lines, providing ... Tanwar. In this business, these persons purchased the agriculture land and there after applies to JDA for conversion of land for residential and commercial purpose. After approval of township plan and map by JDA, they started the development of land i.e. construction of road, lying of water supply lines, providing

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

ITA 1169/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

ITA 1168/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

ITA 1165/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

ITA 1164/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR