← 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

Anjani Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna

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

ITA 201/PAT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had entered into a development agreement (“JDA”) with Om Infrastructure. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued as the assessee I.T.A. No.: 201/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Anjani Kumar

Wheatons Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT / DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita rinesh, JCIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

Trib.) The assessee, a colonizer, being bound to carry out the internal development of the colony at its cost in terms of JDA regulations, the liability of the assessee to carry out the internal development work in the colony is an ascertained liability which accrued on the date

Scholars Education Trust of India, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 153(5)Section 2(41)

submitted that scheme under which the subject plots have been provisionally allotted to the assessee trust is already approved by JDA. The said approval granted by the JDA will actually help determine whether such plots are earmarked for education purposes but the said approval is not on record. The matter ... bringing on record appropriate evidence. The assessee shall be at liberty, to support its contentions by bringing the approval granted by the JDA to the scheme under which the plots have been provisionally allotted and other appropriate evidence on record, to the satisfaction

Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1339/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Appellant 1, Old Court House Corner Tobacco House, 1St Floor, Room No.104, Kol-700001. [Pan: Aafcr4754E] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate & Nandini Sureka, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Rs.Nil. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Act & Subsequent Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued As The Assessing Officer Received Information That The Assessee Has Sold Immovable Property By Adopting Value Lower Than Stamp Valuation Authority. Accordingly, Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Was Passed By Making An Addition Of Rs.28,36,680/- U/S 43Ca Of The Act Being The Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd Difference Between Stamp Duty Valuation & Sale Consideration Of The Immovable Property.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43C

land with other 19 companies. It is pertinent to mention here that the ld. CIT(A) in his order has mentioned the extract of JDA in which it appears that the assessee was entitled to receive 1% of the total realisation which is as under: 3 Rishi Tradecom

M/S Good Living Shelters Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1611/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Chhajed & Sunil WakawalaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta -CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the entire construction and development expenses as per JDA were agreed to be borne by the Assessee only and therefore that entire undisclosed ON MONEY or the Good Living Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Gross Receipts

M/S Good Living Shelters Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1610/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Chhajed & Sunil WakawalaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta -CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the entire construction and development expenses as per JDA were agreed to be borne by the Assessee only and therefore that entire undisclosed ON MONEY or the Good Living Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Gross Receipts

M/S Good Livilng Shelters Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1609/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Chhajed & Sunil WakawalaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta -CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the entire construction and development expenses as per JDA were agreed to be borne by the Assessee only and therefore that entire undisclosed ON MONEY or the Good Living Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Gross Receipts

DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2590/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, E.M. Bypass, Vs. West Bengal-700006 West Bengal-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aancm1997Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Ms. Nandini Surekh, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM DCIT

Shardindu Prasad Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Therefore, for filing second appeal the appellant request were for complete order of assessment against assessee's first letter dated 02.09.2024 which relate to JDA dated 16.06.2015 with the developer Winsome Builders Group on appellant second letter for present order dated 12.09.2019, the department failed to provide the order. Therefore ... failed to appreciate that the appellant has not transferred any right in favour of the developer even as on the date of execution of JDA except permitting the developer to undertake construction on the land in question in terms of JDA that too after complying to the JDA terms itself

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Royal Developers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 448/JPR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Advances to non related parties Saroj Meena Gulam Mustafa Ansari Gulam Farooq Ansari Gulam Haider Ansari Prakash Sharma Advances for Business Purposes Advance to JDA Deposit with JVVNL Security Deposit with NNJ Jaipur Rao Surendra Pal Singh (Collaboration Agreement) Total As at 31st March

Naveen Kumar Musinipally, Usa vs. ADIT (Int-Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly

ITA 323/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

sec.127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response, the assessee vide submissions dated 08.03.2022 stated that, the Joint Development Agreement [in short “JDA”] entered is not a capital asset u/sec.2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and transfer is not a transfer u/sec.2(47) of the Income ... addition made by the Assessing Officer towards computation of capital gain from transfer of property in pursuance to Joint Development Agreement [in short “JDA”] with M/s. Giridhari Homes Pvt. Ltd., on the ground that, Development Agreement with the builder M/s. Giridhari Homes Pvt. Ltd., is only for the purpose

B S Somasekhar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1545/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14 Mr. Bommanayakanahalli Siddaiah Somashekhar, Vs. Ito, #51/4 21St Main, 22Nd Cross, Behind Maruthi Ward – 5(1)(1), Mandira, Vijaynagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 040, Karnataka. Pan : Ainps 4894 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Adarsh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Adarsh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 148Section 2(47)

within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act was complete. By virtue of not executing a formal conveyance, assessee subsequently executed registered JDA, GPA and Sharing Agreement during Financial Year 2010-11 in favour of Shri. Pradeep Krishna for the same land as requested by Shri. M. Krishnappa ... sale proceeds were transferred to Shri. Pradeep Krishna and the AO further noted from sale deed para Nos.9 and 10 that the original JDA, GPA and Sharing Agreement has been cancelled and supplementary agreement has been entered into. However, the assessee has not submitted the supplementary agreement. Accordingly, sale proceeds

Module Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1792/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

Joint Development Agreement) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether where for want of permissions, entire transaction of development of land envisaged in Joint Development Agreement (JDA) fell through, 3 there would be no profit or gain which arose from transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2316/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

appellant fails on both the counts. In other words, the appellant would have deducted TDS @ 10 percent under the specific provision for JDA u/s 194IC rather than general section 194C and failed to fit its case in the proviso to the section 201 and therefore, appellant is deemed ... clear that the legislative intention to introduce to sub section (5A) was to define the year of taxability for transfers under a JDA to minimise the genuine hardship of the assessee who may face capital gains in the year of transfer i.e. year of entering into JDA. If the narrower

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2315/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

appellant fails on both the counts. In other words, the appellant would have deducted TDS @ 10 percent under the specific provision for JDA u/s 194IC rather than general section 194C and failed to fit its case in the proviso to the section 201 and therefore, appellant is deemed ... clear that the legislative intention to introduce to sub section (5A) was to define the year of taxability for transfers under a JDA to minimise the genuine hardship of the assessee who may face capital gains in the year of transfer i.e. year of entering into JDA. If the narrower

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2314/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

appellant fails on both the counts. In other words, the appellant would have deducted TDS @ 10 percent under the specific provision for JDA u/s 194IC rather than general section 194C and failed to fit its case in the proviso to the section 201 and therefore, appellant is deemed ... clear that the legislative intention to introduce to sub section (5A) was to define the year of taxability for transfers under a JDA to minimise the genuine hardship of the assessee who may face capital gains in the year of transfer i.e. year of entering into JDA. If the narrower

Sugee Seven Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2313/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

appellant fails on both the counts. In other words, the appellant would have deducted TDS @ 10 percent under the specific provision for JDA u/s 194IC rather than general section 194C and failed to fit its case in the proviso to the section 201 and therefore, appellant is deemed ... clear that the legislative intention to introduce to sub section (5A) was to define the year of taxability for transfers under a JDA to minimise the genuine hardship of the assessee who may face capital gains in the year of transfer i.e. year of entering into JDA. If the narrower

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Visakhapatnam

ITA 374/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.374/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aatpp2493B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: P. Murali & Co राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 07/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: P. Murali & CoFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

Subsequently, the A.O., based on information that the assessee alongwith three other co-owners, had entered into a Joint Development Agreement ("JDA") for a total consideration of Rs. 23.94 crores, but had failed to offer the “capital gains” for tax, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice ... 3A1E (old S. No. 318/3A1)]. On 25.04.2012, i.e., period relevant to A.Y. 2013– 14, the co-owners had entered into a “Joint Development Agreement”( “JDA”) with M/s. BBCL Vajra, a registered partnership firm having its office at No. 20, Mylai Rangnathan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai, that envisaged the development

Hanmandlu Pampati, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.228/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2013-14) 1. Shri Srinivas Pampati, Karimnagar. Pan: Abopp0603R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar. आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.229/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2013-14) 2. Shri Hanmandlu Pampati, Karimnagar. Pan: Abmpp0324R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri Lalith Kishore Sharma, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: | Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख /Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : These Two Appeals Are Filed By Shri Srinivas Pampati & Shri Hanmandlu Pampati ("The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)"), Dated 04.12.2024 & 05.12.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessees Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kishore SharmaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 154Section 48Section 54F

assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee along with three others had entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney ("JDA") with M/s. Shriyam Infrastructure("Developer") on 02.03.2013. As per the said JDA, the assessee and the other three persons were joint owners of land measuring ... which they agreed to permit the developer for construction of a multi-storeyed residential complex. The JDA provided that the total constructed area would be 1,28,350 sq. ft., out of which the landowners jointly would receive 32% and the developer 68%. The Stamp Duty Authority determined the total

Srinivas Pampati, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kishore SharmaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54F

noticed that the assessee along with three ITA Nos.228 & 229/Hyd/2025 4 others had entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (“JDA”) with M/s. Shriyam Infrastructure(“Developer”) on 02.03.2013. As per the said JDA, the assessee and the other three persons were joint owners of land measuring ... which they agreed to permit the developer for construction of a multi-storeyed residential complex. The JDA provided that the total constructed area would be 1,28,350 sq. ft., out of which the landowners jointly would receive 32% and the developer 68%. The Stamp Duty Authority determined the total