“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

Nandlal, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 16/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(24)Section 250

this appeal is relating to the assessment of capital gains made by the Assessing Officer on account of execution of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) by the assessee in respect of his land. No one I.T.A. No.: 16/PAT/2023 Nandlal, AY : 2015-16 has put an appearance on behalf of the assessee ... proceed to decide the matter 4. The Assessing Officer, in this case, assessed the capital gains observing that the assessee had executed a JDA with the developer and that on execution of the JDA, transfer of the land as per the provisions of section

Madan Lal Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO-7(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1059/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodiya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 48

stated that immovable property transaction is exempted u/s 10(37) the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to sold residential property has allotted by JDA in conversion of his agriculture land. The assessee is treating said land as agriculture land with no evidence provided regarding the cost of acquisition ... notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Id. AO noted that the assessee explained the agriculture land compulsory acquired by the JDA, Jaipur and in consideration of that JDA issued the residential plot and out of these residential plot, the assessee has sold one residential plot. Since

Shri. Vadagur Narayanappa Premachandra, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1032/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R.Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar .E, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

brief facts of the case are that the assessee along with the other co-owners had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 11/03/2021 with the builder M/s. Balaji Constructions and handed over the land to the extent of 1,35,461 sq.ft. for the development and construction ... flats. As per the JDA, the share of the owners are 39% and the share of the builder is 61%. As per the JDA, the builder should hand over approximately 56 flats to the owners as their respective share for surrendering their rights in the said land. The AO reopened

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 84/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

deletion of addition of Rs.83 lakhs. 7. The brief facts related to this appeal are that the assessee entered into Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) with M/s. YKH Builders Pvt. Ltd. (“YKH”) and formed M/s. Pavani and YKH Joint Venture firm (“JV firm”) exclusively for construction of commercial complex which ... development work. Later on, both the partners of JV firm settled their dispute and the JV firm and other land owners entered into another JDA with M/s. WC as developer of the property. In lieu of the initial expenditure incurred by the JV firm on project work, it was decided

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Pavani Structurals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 478/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Pavani Structurals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 477/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

Unimax Chemicals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Balaram Janu Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 3(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 4987/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhribalaram Janu Bhoir V/S. Ito, Ward, 3(1), Kalyan बनाम Bhoir Chawl, Bhoir Sadan, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Retibunder Cross Road, Murbad Rod, Kalyan, Thakurli (W), Dist. Thane-421301 Dist. Thane-421202 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Arrpb3139P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri V. G. GindeFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pandep

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 2(47)Section 250

capital gain would be paid at the time of allotment of built-up area to the assessee. A copy of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was also filed before Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal observing that the assessee did not clarify ... JDA was related to the sales agreement and held that the transfer of capital asset had taken placed in the year under consideration and transaction was within the purview of definition of transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

Nishank Sakariya, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2343/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 2(47)(v)

while framing assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act for AY 2014-15 by order dated 01.06.2016. 5. According to AO, since Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was entered into by the assessee with M/s.Sky Builders Pvt. Ltd., on 06.04.2012 for transfer of the scheduled land, u/s.2 ... facts as noted above in the reasons for reopening were not furnished by the assessee during the assessment for A.Y. 2013-14. Evidence of JDA could not be discovered by the A.O. suo motu unless the information was passed on by the assessee himself or it was disseminated

R. Neelima Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 45

submitted that during the A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee along with other owners of co-adjacent land entered into a Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) with M/s. YNS Infra Projects Private Limited (“M/s. YNS”) and received two flats from M/s. YNS as consideration in A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee sold both ... u/s.132(4) of the Act, accepted the taxability of LTCG in the hands of the assessee in A.Y. 2015-16 i.e. the year of JDA. Relying on such statement of husband of the assessee, the Ld. AO assessed the LTCG in the hands of the assessee

ITO (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally, International Taxation – 1 Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Nenpk4757J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

accepted by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, Assessing Officer calculated the capital gains in the hands of the assessee on account of JDA is at Rs. 3,00, 01,950/-in lieu of his share in the land transferred, thereby raised a demand of Rs. 2,14,83,076/-. Accordingly ... Bench had merely followed the decision of Potla Nageswara Rao wherein the jurisdictional High Court has held that the year of entering into JDA would be the year of taxability. Since in the case in hand, the JDA was entered into on 6 ITA 882/Hyd/2024 04.04.2007, therefore, the amount

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7454/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarcorteva Agriscience India Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Circle-11(1), Ltd), 17Th Floor, Tower-C, Dlf New Delhi Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Dcit, Vs. Corteva Agriscience India Circle-11(1), Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Ltd), 17Th New Delhi Floor, Tower-C, Dlf Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv Shri Pulkit Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Rao, CIT DR

Section 144C

enclosed at 11 planning tools; developing India resource on the rolls various templates specially for supply equations Annexure 11. BP model related to JDA. of DuPont India shall DuPont India -Enabling accurate 3. Errors file supplied by the Assistance on errors generated be a highly costly demand forecasting Indian couterpart ... through India specific JDA affair. Kindly note and meeting the solution is enclosed at system. that only approx 9% demand supply Annexure 11. of his cost (i.e. USD equations. 4. Power point presentation 7,129/-) has been developed by Se Young on charged to DuPont Savli MPS Workshop is India

E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6879/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Rao, CIT DR

Section 144C

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chittoor vs. G Vijayasimha Reddy, Bengaluru

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of revenue are dismissed

ITA 375/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: : Shri S. Mookambikeyan, SR-DR

Section 2(47)(v)Section 52Section 53A

dated 01.02.2007 ITA No.374 & 375/Hyd/2023 3 of Spl. Dy. Commissioner, Bangalore. Thereafter the assessee along with other owner of adjacent land entered into a JDA with M/s. Shriram Properties Ltd. (“M/s. SPL”) on 21.08.2008 for construction of apartment buildings and residential villas on impugned land and adjacent land belonging ... guntas in Badaraguppe Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore district. Thereafter due to change in plan, the assessee and other co-owner entered into another JDA on 17.03.2011 with M/s. SPL wherein certain modified clauses were agreed amongst them. Subsequently, the assessee, other co-owner and M/s. SPL entered into an agreement

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chittoor vs. G Vijayasimha Reddy, Bengaluru

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of revenue are dismissed

ITA 374/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: : Shri S. Mookambikeyan, SR-DR

Section 2(47)(v)Section 52Section 53A

Ashutosh Das, Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1954/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 1942 & 1954/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ashutosh Das,……………………………….….……Appellant C/O. Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adfpd9215N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

assessee as transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the assessee had executed a JDA, however, never handed over the possession of the land to the developer. That there was a condition that the land will be handed over ... land could not be vacated from the tenants, therefore, the same could not be handed over to the developer. That due to this, the JDA did not mature and hence neither income was received nor accrued to the assessee for the year under consideration

Ashutosh Das, Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1942/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Madikeri vs. Govindappa Jayaram Doddaiah, Madapura, Kodagu

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1356/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. H.D. Thejaswini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 54

Ld.AR submitted that the assessee as well as the developer had already proceeded in the arbitration to solve the disputes arising out of the JDA dated 07/07/2017 and on the subsequent sharing agreement dated 05/10/2018 relating to the development of a commercial office space at No. 30, Crescent Road, Bangalore

Govindappa Jayaram Doddiah (HUF), Kodagu vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. H.D. Thejaswini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 54

Manjula Himmatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-20(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2261/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jeetender C. LalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL