← 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

Vijaya Lakshmi Ravula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 218/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

dt.30.03.2024 is against provisions of the law. 2. The ld. Pr. CIT exceeded her jurisdiction by re-evaluating Joint development Agreement (in short JDA) and Supplementary Agreement (in short SA) already examined by the Assessing Officer (AO), who had arrived at a conclusion favorable to the assessee. 3. The conclusion ... drawn by the Pr. CIT regarding the JDA's provisions and its alleged implication of a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47) of the IT Act, read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, is unfounded and erroneous. 4. This license granted to the developer does

Swarajyam Dontireddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 217/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

dt.30.03.2024 is against provisions of the law. 2. The ld. Pr. CIT exceeded her jurisdiction by re-evaluating Joint development Agreement (in short JDA) and Supplementary Agreement (in short SA) already examined by the Assessing Officer (AO), who had arrived at a conclusion favorable to the assessee. 3. The conclusion ... drawn by the Pr. CIT regarding the JDA's provisions and its alleged implication of a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47) of the IT Act, read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, is unfounded and erroneous. 4. This license granted to the developer does

Veerareddy Gogula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

dt.30.03.2024 is against provisions of the law. 2. The ld. Pr. CIT exceeded her jurisdiction by re-evaluating Joint development Agreement (in short JDA) and Supplementary Agreement (in short SA) already examined by the Assessing Officer (AO), who had arrived at a conclusion favorable to the assessee. 3. The conclusion ... drawn by the Pr. CIT regarding the JDA's provisions and its alleged implication of a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47) of the IT Act, read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, is unfounded and erroneous. 4. This license granted to the developer does

Konda Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

dt.30.03.2024 is against provisions of the law. 2. The ld. Pr. CIT exceeded her jurisdiction by re-evaluating Joint development Agreement (in short JDA) and Supplementary Agreement (in short SA) already examined by the Assessing Officer (AO), who had arrived at a conclusion favorable to the assessee. 3. The conclusion ... drawn by the Pr. CIT regarding the JDA's provisions and its alleged implication of a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47) of the IT Act, read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, is unfounded and erroneous. 4. This license granted to the developer does

Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1), Delhi vs. Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2502/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2498 /िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Prince Bansal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Parveen Rawal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम"ा, लेखाकार सद" के सम

Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2498/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2498 /िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Prince Bansal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Parveen Rawal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम"ा, लेखाकार सद" के सम

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

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

ITA 462/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

Facts of the case are that the assessee, as a real estate developer, entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with The South Kanara Agriculturists Marketing Society on 11.10.2013. The JDA was also registered to this effect on the same date of the JDA. As per the said JDA, assessee ... constructed the building SahakariSadana at Mangalore and construction contract was given to Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Proprietor of Coastal Construction. 3.1 As per the JDA, two buildings were to be constructed in the plot of land belonging to the society. Out of the total saleable area

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 461/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

Facts of the case are that the assessee, as a real estate developer, entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with The South Kanara Agriculturists Marketing Society on 11.10.2013. The JDA was also registered to this effect on the same date of the JDA. As per the said JDA, assessee ... constructed the building SahakariSadana at Mangalore and construction contract was given to Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Proprietor of Coastal Construction. 3.1 As per the JDA, two buildings were to be constructed in the plot of land belonging to the society. Out of the total saleable area

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

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

ITA 460/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

Facts of the case are that the assessee, as a real estate developer, entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with The South Kanara Agriculturists Marketing Society on 11.10.2013. The JDA was also registered to this effect on the same date of the JDA. As per the said JDA, assessee ... constructed the building SahakariSadana at Mangalore and construction contract was given to Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Proprietor of Coastal Construction. 3.1 As per the JDA, two buildings were to be constructed in the plot of land belonging to the society. Out of the total saleable area

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

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

ITA 459/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

Facts of the case are that the assessee, as a real estate developer, entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with The South Kanara Agriculturists Marketing Society on 11.10.2013. The JDA was also registered to this effect on the same date of the JDA. As per the said JDA, assessee ... constructed the building SahakariSadana at Mangalore and construction contract was given to Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Proprietor of Coastal Construction. 3.1 As per the JDA, two buildings were to be constructed in the plot of land belonging to the society. Out of the total saleable area

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

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

ITA 458/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

Facts of the case are that the assessee, as a real estate developer, entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with The South Kanara Agriculturists Marketing Society on 11.10.2013. The JDA was also registered to this effect on the same date of the JDA. As per the said JDA, assessee ... constructed the building SahakariSadana at Mangalore and construction contract was given to Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Proprietor of Coastal Construction. 3.1 As per the JDA, two buildings were to be constructed in the plot of land belonging to the society. Out of the total saleable area

Vinaya Abhijit Gajendragadkar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 586/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.586 & 585/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 144Section 250

Event Date Remark 1 Token Advance 01/02/2007 Cash as Visar Pavati 2 Token Advance 25/05/2007 Token against Development Agreement 3 Joint Development 29/05/2007 JDA executed for Rs.500.00 Agreement (JDA) lakhs. One Tenant in the Court 4 Confirmation Deed 30/11/2010 Executed after Court settlement of the dispute 5 Revised JDA 09/02/2011 ... with the liability of litigant tenant 6 Possession July 2011 Possession after receipt of total consideration 7 Conveyance 29/09/2013 Conveyance executed after completion of JDA. Stamp duty value Rs.791.28 lakhs B. Detail of Sale Consideration : Sr. Date Total Assessee’s Cheque Payment share Number for Assessee 1 01/02/2007

Vinaya Abhijit Gajendragadkar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 585/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.586 & 585/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 144Section 250

Event Date Remark 1 Token Advance 01/02/2007 Cash as Visar Pavati 2 Token Advance 25/05/2007 Token against Development Agreement 3 Joint Development 29/05/2007 JDA executed for Rs.500.00 Agreement (JDA) lakhs. One Tenant in the Court 4 Confirmation Deed 30/11/2010 Executed after Court settlement of the dispute 5 Revised JDA 09/02/2011 ... with the liability of litigant tenant 6 Possession July 2011 Possession after receipt of total consideration 7 Conveyance 29/09/2013 Conveyance executed after completion of JDA. Stamp duty value Rs.791.28 lakhs B. Detail of Sale Consideration : Sr. Date Total Assessee’s Cheque Payment share Number for Assessee 1 01/02/2007

Amsri Infra Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 932/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 2(47)(v)Section 37(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in holding that the entitlement on signing the JDA cannot be said to "benefit" arising to the assessee? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the right to receive the entitlement of JDA becomes receivable at the moment the JDA is executed. v) Whether in facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the on execution

Amsri Builders Private Limited, Secundrabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 929/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 2(47)(v)Section 37(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in holding that the entitlement on signing the JDA cannot be said to "benefit" arising to the assessee? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the right to receive the entitlement of JDA becomes receivable at the moment the JDA is executed. v) Whether in facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the on execution

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Cirlce -1(2), Hyderabad vs. Amsri Infra Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1107/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 2(47)(v)Section 37(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in holding that the entitlement on signing the JDA cannot be said to "benefit" arising to the assessee? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the right to receive the entitlement of JDA becomes receivable at the moment the JDA is executed. v) Whether in facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the on execution

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Cirlce -1(2), Hyderabad vs. Amsri Builders Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1104/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 2(47)(v)Section 37(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in holding that the entitlement on signing the JDA cannot be said to "benefit" arising to the assessee? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the right to receive the entitlement of JDA becomes receivable at the moment the JDA is executed. v) Whether in facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the on execution

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru vs. Nalapad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bengaluru

ITA 1959/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Respondent: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R
Section 153C

ITA No.1958/Bang/2024 M/s. Nalapad Properties, Bangalore & ITA No.1959/Bang/2024 M/s. Nalapad Hotels & Convention Centre, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru vs. Nalapad Properties, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1958/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 153CSection 45(2)

present case, since there is no dispute that capital asset has been converted into stock in trade on the date of entering into JDA i.e. 7.1.2008 relevant to AY 2008-09, and capital gain accrued on such conversion of capital asset into stock in trade, to be computed with ... Taxation at the time of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade: 1. Sales consideration at the time of entering in to JDA on 17.1.2008 by transferring the land as a capital asset; The fair market value of capital asset on the date of conversion shall be deemed

Vasant Shivram Madhavi, Panvel vs. ITO Ward - 5, Panvel

ITA 1716/PUN/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: S/Shri Bhupendra Shah and Babulal JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

competent authority. 4 Insofar as the period under consideration i.e. FY:2014-15 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the JDA with builder registered on 04-03-2015 which is in the FY:2014-15 relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16 under consideration. Hence the incidence ... value of assessee's share in the property to be received from the builder as on the date of execution of the JDA has to be calculated and should have been offered to tax in the AY:2015-16 itself