“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bhattacharya Rubber Works (1964) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2084/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2084/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhattacharya Rubber Works (1964) Pvt. Ltd …….………………....Appellant 965, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcb8997M] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata ……............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. As Per Information Available With Income Tax Department, The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property For Rs.5,70,13,000/- During The F.Y 2016-17 Relevant To A.Y. 2017-18. Based On The Information, The Assessing Officer Believed That Income Had Escaped Assessment & Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 23.03.2021 With The Approval Of The Competent Authority. However, The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income In Compliance To The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act. Furthermore, A Questionnaire U/S 142(1) Dated 18.11.2021 Was Issued

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

that there was no outright sale of the property during the F.Y 2016-17 and the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’) on 10.09.2016 with the developer namely M/s Nisha Enclave Pvt. Ltd. under which leasehold interest in the land owned by the assessee was agreed ... relevant year as alleged by the Assessing Officer while framing of the assessment order. He stated that the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the JDA as a sale transaction and taxed the entire consideration of Rs.5,70,13,000/- as short-term capital gains without appreciating the nature of the transaction

Goel Eisha Capitals, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

ITA 1006/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment records it is seen the assessee had carried out a project viz. "Ganga Platino" in Kharadi, Pune under Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with "Viva Highways Pvt. Ltd. (land owner)", wherein the assessee was the developer having 70% share in revenue and has followed the "percentage completion method for revenue

Binod Kumar Mahipal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito, Ward-2(1) Binod Kumar Mahipal Aaykar Bhavan P-7, 1B, Raja Subodh Mulick Square, Ground Floor, Dharmatala, S.O. Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700013 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adzpm8369G Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Altaf Hussain, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

competent authority that the assessee was the confirming party in the said conveyance deed. That the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with the said 41 persons and further that the litigation was going on in the Civil Court and subsequently in the High Court relating ... said JDA entered into by the assessee with the aforesaid 41 persons. So far as the fact relevant to the present. case is concerned, a factual finding has been given in the said order that the assessee had duly explained the source of the payment and which was found satisfactory

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1330/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA 02. BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Skyline Mansions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the cross appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3728/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 40

land and leasehold right was with SGH, both the assessee and SGH agreed to jointly develop the land. Accordingly a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was entered on 04-04-2008 between the assessee and SGH. Accordingly, the SGH granted development rights to the assessee company. As per JDA, the assessee ... assessable as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. However, the Ld CIT(A) has accepted the genuineness of JDA. The ITAT has also held that the security deposit received by SGH was for business purposes only. Placing reliance on the assessment proceedings of SGH, the assessee contended

Skyline Mansions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the cross appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3727/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 40

Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1192/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 153CSection 250

receive 9 plots (Plot No.121, 122, `123, 124, 417, 127 & 53 of A Block and 348 & 349 of B Block of Saligrampura, JDA Scheme,Tonk Road, Jaipur) in lieu of Rs.4.01 crores and for the remaining amount (out of Rs.10 crores),he received Rs.5.22 crores through cheques and Rs.78 lacs

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1149/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 153CSection 250

DCIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. B Raheja Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2677/MUM/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(ill)Section 40

assessee was incorporated on 15.07.2004 and since then it had been carrying the business as builder and developer. It entered into Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 22.03.2007 with four individuals, namely Mr. M.R. Seetharaman, Mr. M.R. Pattabhiramn, Mr. M.R. Kodandaram and Mr. M.R. Anandaram, who were the land owners ... developed with a master plan with view to construct residential building, commercial building and a hotel. Under the specific terms of JDA, assessee was required to pay Rs.36 Crores equally to the said four land owners as refundable security deposit. For this purpose, assessee had taken loans from bank

Dilipkumar Bababhai Zaveri, Patan, Gujarat vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad

ITA 939/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 282

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ ‘D' अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

Gorbandh Fort and Palace Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 141/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 69

affidavit the assessee paid Rs.38, 44, 06,130/- from its bank account during 14.11.2014 to 31.03.2015 to Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) for plot no. A-6, Airport Enclave Scheme, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Thereafter, the assessee company was converted into LLP vide certificate mentioned (supra) on 26.05.2015 and balance amount

Pedaballi Sukanya, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 49/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr. AR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 54F

from the ITO, Ward-3, Ananthapur that the assessee along with 22 other co-owners had entered into a Joint Development Agreement [in short “JDA”] -cum- General Power of Attorney [in short “GPA”] with GK Shelters ITA.No.49/Hyd./2025 (P) Ltd., Bangalore vide document no. 3933/2011 registered ... Taluk, Bangalore. A sharing agreement was made vide document no. 6108 dated 16.01.2012, according to which, the assessee’s share of profit in the JDA is determined for A.Y. 2012-13. The ITO, Ward-3, Ananthapur, after obtaining the prior approval from the Competent Authority u/sec.151 of the Act, issued

Sanjeeva Reddy Talla, Medchal Mandal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

allowed.” 6. The 1d.AR further submitted that once the AO has satisfied with respect to the amount mentioned in the registered Joint Development Agreement (JDA), which is available from page 100 onwards, more particularly at page 114, whereby the assessee has received Rs.55 lakhs in cash from K. Mahender Reddy ... Srinivas Reddy, and T. Gangadhar Yadav, as recorded in the JDA. Further, the assessee had filed the details of other amounts namely, to an extent of Rs.45 lakhs received in December, 2016 from the above said persons and had also filed the confirmation letters showing that the amount was received

Narsi Reddy Komatireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 121/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, SR-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 45

submitted that the Assessing Officer has made an addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the basis of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 11.07.2014 / 19.11.2014 and supplementary agreement dated 16.07.2016. However, there was no transfer of land under the said development agreement including the supplementary agreement ... would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. 8.1 He further submitted that even otherwise, no transfer took place at the time of JDA until the project is approved by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA). He has referred to the various clauses of the JDA and submitted that

Narsi Reddy Komatireddy, Hyderabad vs. Srig. Santosh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 120/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, SR-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 45

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 1158/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP and Shri Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

search proceeding under section 132 of the Act was conducted at Srinivasa Trust on 06-08-2012, during which a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 05-02-2005 between the assessee (Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. was found and marked as Annexure 14/ST/132. Additionally ... business income and capital gains (whether Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG) or Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG)) arising from the Joint Development Agreement (JDA), held that the income from the JDA would be liable to tax only from A.Y. 2012-13 onwards, as the sale deeds for units developed under

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru vs. Alakananda Printers (P) Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and CO filed by the assessee in support of the Order of the CIT(A)

ITA 1774/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Boarkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 2(47)

search was conducted in the case of Bharath Beedi Works Pvt. Ltd., on 26.02.2020. During the course of search, a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was found. In the said JDA, the assessee is one of the co-owners of land under joint development. In the JDA, there were seven ... that the year of incidents of capital gains has to be considered in the Assessment Year 2015-16 as per important clause mentioned in JDA and AO has also noted that out of 7 co-owners Sapthagiri Enterprises has declared the capital gain in the Assessment Year

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaycso648H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ravi BharadawajFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 270ASection 271D

above addition. It is an admitted fact that the assessee company has entered 9 ITA 806/Hyd/2024 into the development agreement with land owners under JDA in the year 2009 and has treated its share of the built-up area as stock-in- trade. The built-up area received in pursuance ... JDA would be a business asset and has been continuously treated as stock-in- trade. From the balance sheet filed by the assessee, we find that the entire expenses towards development of the project area shown as "work in progress" since inception and continues to be shown as such even

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata vs. Pitrashish Marketing Enterprises Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1735/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata vs. Pitrashish Marketing Enterprises Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1734/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh