JDA tax for the developer: development rights, cost of land, section 43CA

This is Part 5 of a six-part study of the income-tax treatment of joint development agreements. Part 1 decides whether a JDA is a transfer and in which year the landowner is taxed, including section 45(5A). Part 2 covers the landowner’s consideration, cost, rate and exemptions. Part 3 covers HUFs, heirs, NRIs, firms and companies as landowners. Part 4 covers trusts, societies, agricultural, leasehold and town planning scheme land. Part 5 covers the developer. Part 6 covers tax deduction at source, searches, reassessment and the transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025. The redevelopment series on this site covers the developer in society and slum schemes: the schemes, payments to members, revenue recognition and the minimum tax, and for members transfer, cost and holding period, hardship, corpus and rent, exit and resale and tenants, slums, shops and NRIs.

A developer that signs a joint development agreement buys land without paying for it in money, or pays only a small part in money. It pays by building the landowner’s flats. The tax consequences on the developer’s side follow from that one fact: what it acquires is a bundle of rights to enter, build and sell its share, held in the ordinary case as stock in trade; its cost of land is what it spends constructing the landowner’s share, together with any cash, stamp duty and approval costs it carries; and that cost waits in work in progress until the developer’s own units are recognised as revenue. Section 43CA reaches the developer’s sales of its own units, subject to the tolerance (110 per cent from assessment year 2021-22) and the agreement-date rule; whether it reaches the handover of the landowner’s share has not been decided by any authority.

This Part links the redevelopment series for the general law on revenue recognition, section 43CB, the income computation and disclosure standards, Ind AS 115 and the minimum tax, and the affordable housing article for section 80-IBA, and adds only what is specific to a JDA.

Key points

• Development rights acquired by a developer under a JDA are ordinarily stock in trade, but the Supreme Court held in Glowshine Builders (4 May 2023) that the books are not conclusive. A developer can hold them as a capital asset, and the head of income on an assignment or cancellation follows that finding.
• The developer’s cost of land is the cost of constructing the landowner’s share, plus cash, stamp duty, registration and approval costs it bears. The first limb of paragraph 7.2 of the 2012 Guidance Note values rights acquired by constructing built-up area at the amount spent on it. A refundable deposit is a receivable.
• Section 43CA applies to the developer’s own sales. In the Gujarat model, where the landowner conveys the undivided share of land and the developer signs a construction agreement, the developer argues that the stamp duty value of the unit must be compared with both prices together; the Revenue that the developer’s own price is tested. No decision was traced.
• No decision applies section 43CA to the handover of the landowner’s share. The Revenue relies on the exchange and on Ind AS 115; the developer on accession and the absence of a stated consideration.
• On the words of its definition, section 56(2)(x) does not reach development rights held as stock, because property there means a capital asset of the assessee; no order has decided that point, and the Revenue’s answer is that whether the rights are stock is a question of fact after Glowshine. Chandiwala Enterprises (Mumbai Tribunal, 2024) reached the developer’s result on the footing that a licence is not receipt of property.
• Aaryan Buildspace (Ahmedabad Tribunal, 2025) holds that section 43CB does not reach a developer, and a different Bench followed it in Vyapti Enterprise, but both concern developers on their own land. The Revenue’s argument that the landowner’s share is a construction contract is undecided.
• Sanand Properties (Supreme Court, 12 May 2026) supports, by analogy, a revenue-sharing developer in reporting only its own share where the landowner has an enforceable right to a slice of gross receipts; outside an AOP the point is undecided.
• The Ahmedabad Tribunal treats compensation for surrendering a right to sue as a capital receipt (Popular Estate, Bhojison). The Mumbai Tribunal in Dalvi treated compensation paid with a purchase of land held as stock as a trading receipt. The Gujarat High Court has not decided the point on merits.
• Radhe Developers (Gujarat High Court, Tax Appeal 546 of 2008, 13 December 2011) allows section 80-IB(10) to a developer that bears risk and cost without owning the land. Section 80-IBA contains no ownership words. Both deductions are closed to projects approved after 31 March 2022.

What the developer acquires under a JDA: development rights, held as stock or as a capital asset

A developer under an area-sharing joint development agreement acquires a contractual bundle, not the land: a licence to enter and build, usually an irrevocable power of attorney to obtain approvals and sign sale documents, and the right to sell its share of the units with the corresponding undivided share of land, the title to which the landowner conveys to the developer’s purchasers. Whether that bundle is the developer’s stock in trade or a capital asset is the first question in every computation, because the answer decides four things at once: whether the cost of building the landowner’s share is inventory cost or capital cost; whether a receipt on assignment or cancellation is business income, capital gains or a capital receipt outside both; whether section 43CA or section 50C is the deeming provision on an onward transfer; and whether interest on money borrowed for the project is governed by the proviso to section 36(1)(iii).

The ordinary case: stock in trade

A developer in the business of real estate development acquires development rights in order to build and sell, never to hold. It records them in inventory and charges every outlay on them to work in progress. On those facts the rights are stock in trade, and that is the premise of the whole redevelopment line on this site, where the Mumbai Tribunal treated a developer’s floor space index and transferable development rights as stock in Shafaa Construction and Sumer Corporation.

Glowshine Builders: the books are not conclusive

The Supreme Court made the point that matters most for a developer in a dispute in CIT-8, Mumbai v. Glowshine Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal 2565 of 2022, decided on 4 May 2023 by M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna JJ for assessment year 2009-10. The developer had sold its development rights in land at Vasai to Kirit City Homes Pvt. Ltd. under a development agreement of 6 May 2008, preceded by a memorandum of 27 December 2007, for Rs 15,94,06,500, a price it said a registered rectification deed of 30 May 2008 reduced to Rs 5,24,27,354, which it had offered as business income for assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer, noting that there had been no sale in four years and negligible expenses, treated the rights as a capital asset and added the whole Rs 15,94,06,500 as short-term capital gain. The Tribunal held them stock in trade because they had been shown as inventory in the balance sheets for years, and the Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The Supreme Court set both aside, holding at paragraph 7 that “Merely on the basis of recording of the inventory in the books of accounts, the transaction in question would not become stock in trade”, and that “multiple factors like frequency of trade and volume of trade, nature of transaction over the years etc., are required to be examined”. It remanded the matter to the Tribunal (paragraph 7.2), observing at paragraph 7.1 that the differential of Rs 10,69,79,146 had to be assessed as either capital gain or business income unless shown to have been refunded.

A developer can hold development rights as a capital asset

In ACIT v. Parmar Properties Pvt. Ltd., decided by the Pune Tribunal on 8 November 2017 for assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09, a developer had acquired development rights in reserved land in 1993 and 1996, with an investment of about Rs 5 lakh, and shown them as a fixed asset for more than eight years, while an embargo on building on the reserved land lasted, before converting them into stock after an agreement of 28 December 2001 with the Pune Municipal Corporation permitted development. The Tribunal relied first on that embargo (paragraph 29), recorded at paragraph 30 the assessee’s stand that “it is not correct to say that whatever a businessman acquires is his business asset”, accepted it at paragraphs 30 and 31, held that the classification accepted for years could not be disturbed, and taxed the gain under section 45(2) proportionately in the years in which the converted stock was sold (paragraph 32).

The positions reversed in ITO v. Rajesh S. Kasat, decided by the Pune Tribunal on 24 September 2018 for assessment year 2009-10. The assessee had acquired development rights, not ownership, over 46.5 R of land under a memorandum of 1 April 2007 and parted with 40 R when the owners sold the land to Omega Premises with the assessee as a consenting party. He offered the gain of Rs 2,83,29,301 as business income, the Assessing Officer taxed it as short-term capital gain, and the Tribunal held at paragraph 14 that the transaction was “at best, an adventure in the nature of trade”, to be assessed as business income, although the assessee, a share and commodity trader who had dealt in TDRs and FSI before, had shown the rights as an investment in his balance sheet.

Radhe Developers paragraph 41 and the licence cases

Two strands of authority pull in different directions on what the developer holds in law. The Gujarat High Court in CIT-I v. Radhe Developers, Tax Appeal 546 of 2008, decided on 13 December 2011 by Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani JJ, held at paragraph 41 that a developer in possession under a development agreement and an agreement to sell “would be the owner of the land for the purpose of the said Act”, though title had not passed and would pass only on a registered sale deed. The Court reached that view by reading section 2(47)(v) with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, because the developer held possession in part performance of an agreement to buy the land at a fixed price; it said so “for the limited purpose of deduction under Section 80IB(10)”, and added that “the assessee had satisfied the condition of ownership also; even if it was necessary”, which makes it an alternative holding.

Against it stands the modern line on the landowner’s side, which treats a JDA developer as a licensee. The Calcutta High Court held in PCIT v. Emporis Properties, ITAT/59/2023, decided on 30 March 2023, that under a JDA of 17 September 2013 with a 55:45 area share and a Rs 10 crore refundable deposit “the assessee continued to be the owner of the property throughout the development of the property”. The Mumbai Tribunal in Chandiwala Enterprises, discussed below, held that a developer’s licence “cannot be said to be possession within the meaning of Section 53A”.

The cost of land is the cost of building the landowner’s share

Under an area-sharing joint development agreement the developer’s cost of land is what it spends constructing the landowner’s share, together with any cash it pays the landowner and the stamp duty, registration and approval costs it bears; all of it is the cost of the developer’s inventory.

What the accounting says

The ICAI’s Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions (Revised 2012), which governs firms, limited liability partnerships and companies not on Ind AS, brings “(f) Joint development agreements for any of the above activities” within its scope at paragraph 1.2. Paragraph 2.2(a) defines the cost of land and development rights as “All costs related to the acquisition of land, development rights in the land or property including cost of land, cost of development rights, rehabilitation costs, registration charges, stamp duty, brokerage costs and incidental expenses.”

The Guidance Note has no paragraph written for land acquired under a JDA in exchange for constructed area. The nearest text is paragraph 7.2, and both its limbs matter. The first limb provides that “When development rights are acquired by way of direct purchase or on development or construction of built-up area, cost of acquisition would be the cost of purchases or amount spent on development or construction of built-up area, respectively.” That describes exactly what a JDA developer does, and it is a cost rule: the rights are carried at the amount spent building the landowner’s share, not at their market value. The second limb, quoted in the redevelopment series, provides that where development rights are acquired “by way of giving up of rights over existing structures or open land”, they are recorded at the lower of fair market value and the net book value of the portion given up. That limb describes the landowner, or a redevelopment society, giving up land; it is not the developer’s rule. Two cautions apply. Paragraph 7 is headed “Transferable Development Rights” and paragraph 7.1 speaks of TDRs, so it is arguable that it governs municipal transferable rights and not in-situ rights under a JDA at all, in which case the Guidance Note is simply silent. And nothing in the Guidance Note, on either reading, requires a non-Ind AS developer to gross up the landowner’s share to fair value.

An Ind AS developer is in a different position. Ind AS 115 requires an entity to “measure the non-cash consideration (or promise of non-cash consideration) at fair value” (paragraph 66), falls back to the stand-alone selling price of what is promised where fair value cannot reasonably be estimated (paragraph 67), and treats goods or services a customer contributes to facilitate fulfilment, where the entity obtains control of them, as non-cash consideration (paragraph 69). If the landowner is treated as a customer for the flats it receives, the developer recognises revenue on the landowner’s share at the fair value of the land received, and records the same amount as the cost of land in inventory. These paragraphs are taken from two published reproductions of the standard that agree word for word; the Gazette text was not read.

Why the Act follows actual cost

The Income-tax Act deducts what the developer actually spent. No provision substitutes a notional cost of stock for a developer, and the Mumbai Tribunal said so in terms in ITO v. Fine Developers (2018), where it held that “there is no provision to substitute Notional market value for computing Business income”, as recorded in the redevelopment series. Income computation and disclosure standard II values inventory at “cost, or net realisable value, whichever is lower” (the standards are quoted in this Part from published reproductions of Notification 87 of 2016, which was not itself read), and that framework, as the redevelopment series explains, puts every outlay on acquiring the development rights into the cost of the developer’s stock.

The mirror image on the landowner’s side supports the same answer. In L.K. Trust v. DCIT, decided by the Bangalore Tribunal on 9 June 2026 for assessment year 2018-19, a trust holding land as stock had given 45 per cent of its land to its developer, Prestige, for 55 per cent of the built-up area, about 2,74,332 square feet. The Assessing Officer measured the trust’s consideration by the developer’s cost of construction, Rs 7,853 a square foot, and added about Rs 167 crore. The Tribunal deleted the addition, holding at paragraph 8.8 that “The builder’s cost of construction is his outlay, not the assessee’s income”. Computing the trust’s business income, the Tribunal refused the owner’s plea to value the land, took the guideline value of the constructed area received, Rs 1,208 a square foot or about Rs 33.14 crore, as fair market value under section 50D (in terms a capital gains provision) read with section 43CA, and then accepted the owner’s own higher figure of Rs 48 crore (paragraphs 8.11 to 9).

The Revenue’s arguments against the cost

The Revenue has three arguments. The first is that the landowner’s share is not a cost of the developer’s units at all, because the developer does not sell those units. On that view the developer deducts only the construction cost of its own share, and the cost of building the landowner’s share is never deducted. That is the “first line” the Revenue tried on rehab flats, and it fails for the same reason: the cost was incurred for one purpose only, to acquire the right to build and sell the developer’s share, and the Act does not tax gross receipts. No authority supports it.

The second is that the cost of the landowner’s share should be measured at the stamp duty value or market value of the land, so as to reduce the deductible cost or to create a receipt on the handover. The answer is that cost is what was spent; a stamp duty value is a deeming device for consideration in section 43CA and section 50C, not for cost.

The third arises where an Ind AS developer books the land at fair value and then claims that higher figure as cost for normal tax without bringing in the matching revenue. Here the Revenue is right to insist on symmetry. A developer cannot take the fair-value cost while excluding the fair-value revenue; for the normal computation both are reversed to actual cost, and only the minimum tax is affected by the gross-up, as Part 3 of the redevelopment developer series explains.

When the cost is deducted: work in progress, handover and the 25 per cent threshold

The cost of building the landowner’s share is deducted when the developer’s own units are recognised as revenue, not when the landowner’s flats are handed over and not when the money is spent. Under the project completion method that is the year in which the developer’s units are conveyed or possession passes; under the percentage of completion method it is spread across the years in proportion to the stage of completion.

The handover year is not the deduction year

A JDA commonly delivers the landowner’s flats in the same phase as the developer’s, and in Ahmedabad often first, because the landowner insists on it. A developer on project completion that has handed over the landowner’s flats in one year and conveys most of its own units in the next carries the whole cost of the landowner’s share into the next year.

The phased JDA, common for larger Gujarat projects with several building use permissions, makes this harder. Where the JDA allots the landowner a fixed share in each phase, the cost of the landowner’s share in a phase belongs to the developer’s units in that phase. Where the landowner’s share is concentrated in one tower and the developer’s units are spread across all of them, the cost has to be allocated across the phases on a rational and consistent basis, which is the rule paragraph 9 of income computation and disclosure standard II lays down for costs of conversion of joint products and which applies here by analogy. Saleable area is the basis most often accepted; the redevelopment series gives the authority and the arithmetic.

Percentage of completion: does the landowner’s share count towards the threshold?

Under paragraph 5.3 of the Guidance Note, a developer applying percentage of completion recognises no revenue until, among other conditions, the expenditure incurred on construction and development costs reaches 25 per cent of those costs. The paragraph measures the threshold on “construction and development costs as defined in paragraph 2.2 (c) read with paragraphs 2.3 to 2.5”, which excludes the cost of land and development rights in paragraph 2.2(a).

The developer’s argument is that the landowner’s share is, in economic substance and on paragraph 2.2(a) and the first limb of paragraph 7.2, the cost of acquiring development rights, so it is land cost and is excluded from both the numerator and the denominator. On that view, building the landowner’s tower first does not advance the stage of completion of the developer’s project at all. The Revenue’s argument is that the bricks and steel in the landowner’s flats are construction cost in every physical sense, incurred on the same site under the same contracts, and that paragraph 2.3 lists construction costs by their nature, not by whose flat they end up in. On the Revenue’s view a developer that builds the landowner’s share first can cross the 25 per cent threshold early and must start recognising revenue. The same question arises on rehab cost in redevelopment and is argued in Part 3 of the redevelopment developer series; no decision on either was traced.

Ind AS 115: the gross-up year

An Ind AS developer that treats the landowner as a customer books the gross-up in the year control of the landowner’s flats passes, usually the handover after the building use permission, and it reverses as the developer’s own units are sold. For the normal computation both entries are reversed to actual cost; for the minimum tax under section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, where on the face of the text a company’s credit clauses were omitted from 1 April 2026, the acceleration can become a permanent cost, as Part 3 of the redevelopment developer series and the affordable housing article explain.

Deposits, cash, stamp duty and interest: the rest of the price

Apart from construction, a JDA developer usually pays four other things: a refundable security deposit, some cash, stamp duty and registration on the JDA and the power of attorney, and interest on the money it borrows to do all this.

The refundable security deposit is a receivable

Most Gujarat, Bengaluru and Hyderabad JDAs require the developer to place an interest-free deposit with the landowner, refundable on completion or recovered out of the landowner’s share of sale proceeds. In Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. v. ACIT, decided by the Bangalore Tribunal on 2 March 2021 for assessment year 2014-15, the developer paid 54 landowners Rs 21,85,00,000, at Rs 1 crore an acre, to be recovered through sale of the owners’ constructed area, and the Tribunal held at paragraphs 5.4, 5.7 and 5.8 that, under a JDA giving entry by way of licence only and with no sanction or construction in the year, the deposit was not consideration for a transfer of immovable property for section 194-IA (its paragraph 5 opens with an inconsistent sentence that should be read with that caution).

A deposit that is refundable in money, or recoverable from the landowner’s sale proceeds, is an asset of the developer: a receivable. It becomes part of the price of the development rights only if, and from the date when, the JDA converts it into non-refundable consideration, for example by providing that it will be adjusted against the landowner’s entitlement at plan approval.

Where the deposit is recovered out of the landowner’s share of sales collected by the developer, as in the Prestige clause, the collections that repay it are not the developer’s revenue. The developer’s books must show the landowner’s collections as money held for the landowner, or the Assessing Officer will treat the developer’s gross collections as its turnover.

Non-refundable deposits and cash consideration

A non-refundable deposit or advance, a lump sum at signing, instalments on milestones, or a minimum guaranteed payment under a revenue-sharing JDA are all part of the price of the development rights. They are inventory cost, deducted when the developer’s revenue is recognised, not when they are paid. Where a resident landowner is an individual or a Hindu undivided family and the JDA is a registered specified agreement under section 45(5A), cash paid is within section 194-IC at ten per cent with no threshold (a non-resident is under section 195); the Mumbai Tribunal in Sugee Seven Developers (10 October 2025) applied it even to a landowner holding on perpetual lease, and withholding is decided for this series in Part 6. If tax was deductible and not deducted, or deducted and not paid by the due date of the return, section 40(a)(ia) disallows thirty per cent of the sum; where the payment sits in work in progress, the disallowance bites on the cost carried there. Cash paid to a landowner above ten thousand rupees in a day otherwise than by account payee cheque, draft or a prescribed electronic mode is also exposed to section 40A(3), subject to rule 6DD, as the redevelopment series explains. In Shivalik Ventures (Mumbai Tribunal, ITA 3429/Mum/2024, assessment year 2012-13, an order dated 19 September 2024 on its cover and 16 September 2024 at its foot), the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs 2,33,65,500 of transit rent to slum dwellers carried in work in progress and reduced the work in progress by that sum; the Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed by the Tribunal, held no tax deductible on transit rent, deleted the disallowance and restored the work in progress.

Stamp duty and registration on the JDA

Stamp duty and registration charges the developer pays on the JDA and on the irrevocable power of attorney are named in paragraph 2.2(a) of the Guidance Note as part of the cost of land and development rights. If the JDA is later cancelled and the duty is lost, it is part of the work in progress written off as a business loss in the year of cancellation, with any refund under the stamp law taxed when received.

Conversion premium, betterment and approval charges

In Gujarat the developer usually bears the non-agricultural conversion premium, the AUDA or AMC development charges and betterment, and the fees for plan approval and the building use permission. Paragraph 2.3(a) of the Guidance Note lists “land conversion costs, betterment charges, municipal sanction fee and other charges for obtaining building permissions” as construction and development costs that relate directly to a project.

Interest

The general rules on interest during and after construction, income computation and disclosure standard IX and section 36(1)(iii), are in Part 3 of the redevelopment developer series. Two JDA-specific questions remain. Interest on money borrowed to fund a refundable deposit is not interest on inventory, because the deposit is a receivable; the developer’s argument is that it is interest on capital borrowed for the business, allowable in the year under section 36(1)(iii). The Revenue’s argument is that the deposit is part of the cost of acquiring development rights that take more than twelve months to bring to a saleable condition, so the interest belongs in work in progress under standard IX, or, if the rights are a capital asset, is disallowed by the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) for the period before the asset is first put to use. Paragraph 2.2(b) of the Guidance Note includes in project cost borrowing costs “incurred directly in relation to a project or which are apportioned to a project” under AS 16, so a developer’s books will usually capitalise both; whether the Act follows the books on this point has not been decided for a JDA.

Section 43CA on the developer’s own sales

Section 43CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies to every unit the developer sells out of its share: where the consideration “received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both” is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable for stamp duty “in respect of such transfer”, that value is deemed to be the full value of the consideration. The first proviso disapplies it where the stamp duty value does not exceed 110 per cent of the consideration; that tolerance runs from assessment year 2021-22, it was 105 per cent for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21, and there was none from assessment year 2014-15, when the section began, to 2018-19. Sub-sections (3) and (4) allow the value on the date of the agreement to be taken where the dates of agreement and registration differ, but only where the consideration or part of it was received by account payee cheque, account payee draft, electronic clearing through a bank account or another prescribed electronic mode on or before the date of the agreement; before assessment year 2019-20 any mode other than cash sufficed. The counterpart in the Income-tax Act, 2025 is section 53, with the same 110 per cent tolerance and agreement-date rule and no counterpart of the expired 120 per cent relief for first allotments of residential units. The general law, and the interaction with section 80-IBA, are on the section 43CA provision page and in the affordable housing article. Three points are specific to a JDA developer.

The agreement-date rule and the Gujarat jantri

A Gujarat JDA usually runs for three to five years, and the developer books its units throughout. The State is widely reported to have revised its jantri rates sharply with effect from 15 April 2023; the government resolution was not read for this series. A unit booked before such a revision and registered after it is tested on the agreement-date value only if part of the price came through the banking channel on or before the agreement date. A booking taken wholly in cash, or by a cheque received only after the agreement or not crossed account payee, loses the rule and is tested against the jantri on the date of registration.

The Gujarat split model: one unit, two documents

In much of Gujarat the sale of a unit under a JDA is documented in two parts. The landowner conveys the undivided share of land to the buyer, with the developer as a confirming party, and the developer signs a separate construction agreement for the building. The Gujarat High Court described that model in CIT-III v. Swastik Associates (Tax Appeal 348 of 2014, 7 May 2014), where the developer was a confirming party to the landowners’ sale deeds, and the Ahmedabad Tribunal described a “Development and Organization Agreement” of the same kind, under which land sale proceeds went to the landowner and construction proceeds to the developer, in Radhe Developers (Anand), decided on 3 August 2022.

The stamp duty value in the split model is assessed on the unit as a whole. If the Assessing Officer compares that value with the developer’s construction price alone, the land component is counted on one side and not the other, and a section 43CA addition appears on a unit sold at full market price. The developer’s argument is that section 43CA asks whether the unit was transferred below its stamp duty value, so the comparison must be with the aggregate of the land price and the construction price; a stamp duty value that includes land cannot be set against a consideration that excludes it. The Revenue’s argument is that the developer is in substance the seller of the whole unit, that it alone fixes the price and markets the unit, and that it is the developer’s own consideration that section 43CA tests. The Revenue’s argument has a further point where the developer is in fact paid the land price and remits it to the landowner, because then the developer’s receipts include both. No decision on the split was traced.

The year in which section 43CA applies

Section 43CA applies in the year of the transfer, not the year of a later registration. In ACIT v. Vidhi Enterprises, decided by the Mumbai Tribunal on 16 February 2026 for assessment year 2018-19, a developer holding 58 per cent under a 2008 redevelopment agreement had sold offices by an agreement of 13 October 2013 for Rs 10,95,88,000, received the price and given possession in 2013-14, and registered an assignment deed on 3 August 2017. The Assessing Officer reopened on sub-registrar data and taxed Rs 10,81,34,530 in the registration year. The Tribunal deleted it, holding at paragraph 8 that “Section 43CA also cannot be invoked in a year in which no transfer of stock-in-trade has taken place”. For a JDA developer whose landowner registers sale deeds years after the developer has sold and delivered, Vidhi is the answer to a reopening built on registration data; the Revenue’s reply is that section 2(47) does not apply to stock, so the transfer of immovable property is the registered conveyance, when the stamp duty value is fixed.

Is handing over the landowner’s share a transfer by the developer?

No authority has decided whether a developer that hands over the landowner’s flats under an area-sharing JDA makes a transfer of its stock to which section 43CA applies.

The Revenue’s argument

An area-sharing JDA is an exchange. The developer gives completed units, which are its stock and are “land or building or both” held otherwise than as a capital asset, and receives land or development rights. An exchange is a transfer, and the consideration “received or accruing” is the value of what the developer receives. Radhe Developers paragraph 41 treats a developer in possession as the owner of the land “for the purpose of the said Act”; if the developer owns the land for tax and builds the whole building on it, the units it hands to the landowner are its own and their handover in exchange for land is a transfer by it in the ordinary sense of an exchange. The developer’s own books say the same thing: an Ind AS developer books the handover as revenue at fair value under paragraphs 66 and 69 of Ind AS 115. Where the handover is documented by a registered allotment, sharing or confirmation deed reciting nil or nominal consideration, as Bengaluru and Chennai sharing agreements commonly are, the stamp duty value of the landowner’s units exceeds the recorded consideration; the agreement-date rule in section 43CA(3) and (4) is unavailable because nothing passed through the banking channel on the JDA date; and the difference is deemed income of the handover year. The Revenue’s fall-back is section 28(iv), which since assessment year 2024-25 (Act 8 of 2023) charges the value of any benefit or perquisite arising from business “whether … convertible into money or not; or … in cash or in kind”.

The developer’s argument

In a typical Gujarat area-sharing JDA the landowner never parts with the land under his own share. The building on it accedes to his land, and what the developer hands over is possession of what is already the landowner’s property. Nothing the developer owns is transferred; the undivided share that moves is the landowner’s share corresponding to the developer’s units, and it moves from the landowner to the developer’s buyers. Nor can the extended meanings in section 2(47)(v) and (vi) help the Revenue, because section 2(47) defines transfer only “in relation to a capital asset” (as does section 2(109) of the 2025 Act), and section 43CA applies only to assets other than capital assets. Radhe Developers paragraph 41 rested on section 53A possession under an agreement to buy the land, which an area-sharing developer does not have, and was said “for the limited purpose” of section 80-IB(10) as an alternative holding; it does not make every flat in the building the developer’s. Section 43CA is a computational fiction that presupposes an ascertained consideration for the asset transferred, and no consideration is fixed for the landowner’s units anywhere; the developer’s outlay on them is the price of its own stock, as the first limb of paragraph 7.2 of the Guidance Note records. Even if there were an exchange, it is profit-neutral: the value given and the value received are the price of each other, so taxing a sale of the landowner’s flats in the handover year and then deducting the same value as cost of land when the developer’s units are sold accelerates tax without increasing income. Accounting entries under Ind AS do not determine income under the Act. And section 28(iv) would tax as a benefit what is in truth the developer’s stock, paid for with its own construction.

Where it stands

No decision applying section 43CA to the handover of a landowner’s share was found. The only decision applying section 43CA to a JDA at all is L.K. Trust, on the landowner’s side, where the Bangalore Tribunal treated a trust’s transfer of land held as stock as within section 43CA and found no substitution called for because the declared value exceeded the guideline value (paragraph 8.6); its use of the guideline value of the landowner’s built-up area as the floor of its consideration is the nearest support for the Revenue’s theory, though it also observed (paragraph 9.1) that the value adopted becomes the cost of the stock and leaves the ultimate profit unchanged. The developer’s position matches what happens on a Gujarat site; the Revenue’s argument is coherent, has the developer’s own Ind AS accounts behind it, and becomes much stronger where the handover is documented as a registered allotment at nil consideration.

Extra area, construction paid for by the landowner, and a buy-back of flats

The position is different, and clear, where the landowner buys area beyond his entitlement. That is a sale of the developer’s stock for money, section 43CA applies to it in the ordinary way, and the agreement-date rule is available only if part of the price was paid through the banking channel on or before the agreement. Where the landowner instead pays the developer in money to build or upgrade his own share, that component is a construction contract for a price on any view, and section 43CB and income computation and disclosure standard III apply to it without the Revenue needing its argument about the landowner’s share. The sharpest contrast is a sale of land with a buy-back of flats: the developer takes a registered conveyance of the land, pays part of the price by promising flats to the seller, and later delivers them. The land is then the developer’s stock, the flats stand on its own land, and the accession answer above is not available; their delivery is a transfer of the developer’s stock in exchange for land, and the section 43CA argument that is open in an area-sharing JDA is at its strongest. The developer’s cost of land is the cash plus the cost of building the seller’s flats. No decision on a buy-back structure was traced.

Worked example (f): the developer’s cost of land and the section 43CA test on its sales

A worked example shows how the cost of land is built up, what the Revenue’s first line does to it, how section 43CA applies unit by unit, and what the handover of the landowner’s share produces under each treatment. The facts are illustrative. A developer firm signs a registered area-sharing JDA with three individual co-owners of a plot in western Ahmedabad. The landowners take 40 per cent of the saleable built-up area, 48,000 of 1,20,000 square feet, and Rs 1.5 crore in cash; the developer takes the remaining 72,000 square feet, pays a refundable deposit of Rs 1 crore, and bears the whole construction cost at Rs 2,800 a square foot, the stamp duty on the JDA and the approval charges. The stamp duty and approval figures are assumptions, not Gujarat rates.

Table F1. The developer’s cost of its 72,000 sq ft (illustrative)

Item	Basis	Amount (Rs)	Cost of the developer’s inventory?
Construction of the developer’s 60 per cent	72,000 sq ft at Rs 2,800	20,16,00,000	Yes
Construction of the landowner’s 40 per cent	48,000 sq ft at Rs 2,800	13,44,00,000	Yes: the price of the land
Cash paid to the individual landowners under the registered JDA	Agreement	1,50,00,000	Yes: the price of the land
Stamp duty and registration on the JDA and power of attorney	Assumed	60,00,000	Yes
Plan approval, conversion and other charges	Assumed	2,00,00,000	Yes
Interest-free refundable deposit paid to the landowners	Agreement	1,00,00,000	No: a receivable
Total cost of the developer’s inventory		37,70,00,000
Cost per sq ft of the developer’s 72,000 sq ft		5,236
Tax deducted under section 194-IC on the cash (10 per cent, no threshold)		15,00,000	Not a cost; paid on the landowners’ account

Table F2. Profit on the developer’s share: actual cost against the Revenue’s first line

	Developer’s computation	Revenue’s first line (landowner’s share not cost)
Sale of 72,000 sq ft at Rs 6,200	44,64,00,000	44,64,00,000
Cost charged	37,70,00,000	22,76,00,000
Profit	6,94,00,000	21,88,00,000
Margin on revenue	15.5 per cent	49.0 per cent

Table F3. Section 43CA on five of the developer’s sales

Unit	Agreed price (Rs)	Stamp duty value on agreement date (Rs)	Stamp duty value on registration (Rs)	Part paid by banking channel on or before agreement?	Value tested (Rs)	Within 110 per cent?	Section 43CA addition (Rs)
Unit 1	74,40,000	76,00,000	79,00,000	Yes	76,00,000	Yes	0
Unit 2	72,00,000	76,00,000	84,00,000	Yes	76,00,000	Yes	0
Unit 3	72,00,000	76,00,000	84,00,000	No	84,00,000	No	12,00,000
Unit 4	99,00,000	1,02,00,000	1,12,00,000	No	1,12,00,000	No	13,00,000
Unit 5	1,08,00,000	1,06,00,000	1,18,00,000	Yes	1,06,00,000	Yes	0
Total							25,00,000

Table F4. The Gujarat split model: one unit, two documents, one stamp duty value

Comparison	Consideration compared (Rs)	Stamp duty value of the unit (Rs)	Within 110 per cent?	Addition (Rs)
Developer’s construction price alone (Revenue’s reading)	54,00,000	76,00,000	No	22,00,000
Land price plus construction price (developer’s reading)	72,00,000	76,00,000	Yes	0

Table F5. Handing over the landowner’s 48,000 sq ft: four treatments

Treatment	Income in the handover year (Rs)	Cost of land carried into the developer’s sales (Rs)	Total over the project (Rs)
Developer’s position: no transfer by the developer, cost of land at actual cost	0	14,94,00,000	6,94,00,000
Ind AS 115 books: revenue at fair value (taken here at stamp duty value, Rs 4,500 a sq ft) less actual cost; book profit only	6,66,00,000	21,60,00,000	6,94,00,000
Revenue’s section 43CA theory, if land received is valued at the same stamp duty value	6,66,00,000	21,60,00,000	6,94,00,000
Revenue’s section 43CA theory, if cost of land is left at actual cost	6,66,00,000	14,94,00,000	13,60,00,000

Reading the tables. Table F1 is the developer’s position: the cost of its 72,000 square feet is Rs 37.70 crore, of which Rs 14.94 crore (the landowners’ construction and the cash) is the price of the land; the deposit stays outside. Table F2 shows the Revenue’s first line, which drops the Rs 13.44 crore of construction on the landowners’ share and the cash, and lifts the margin from 15.5 per cent to 49 per cent on the same sales; that is a tax on gross receipts, and it is why the argument has not succeeded in any case traced. Tables F3 and F4 show the agreement-date rule and the split-model comparison at work: the two units booked without a banking-channel payment attract Rs 25 lakh between them, and the split-model unit is within tolerance only on the aggregate price. Table F5 shows that on the developer’s position the handover of the landowners’ share produces no income, that the Ind AS gross-up produces Rs 6.66 crore of book profit in the handover year which reverses on the developer’s sales, and that the Revenue’s section 43CA theory is profit-neutral over the project only if the land received is carried at the same stamp duty value; if the Assessing Officer taxes the handover and leaves the cost of land at actual cost, the developer is taxed on Rs 13.60 crore over the project against a real profit of Rs 6.94 crore.

Section 56(2)(x) when the developer acquires development rights below the jantri

Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not, on the words of its definition, reach a developer that acquires development rights as stock in trade, because the immovable property it reaches is “property” as defined for clause (vii), which means a capital asset of the assessee. Clause (x)(b) taxes a person who receives “any immovable property” without consideration where its stamp duty value exceeds Rs 50,000, or for a consideration that falls short of the stamp duty value by more than the higher of Rs 50,000 and (from assessment year 2021-22) ten per cent of the consideration. The Explanation to clause (x) gives “property” the meaning in clause (d) of the Explanation to clause (vii), and that clause provides that “‘property’ means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely”, listing first “immovable property being land or building or both”. The Income-tax Act, 2025 carries the same structure: section 92(2)(m) charges the receipt, and section 92(5)(f) defines property as “the following capital asset of the assessee”, beginning with “immovable property being land or building or both”.

Chandiwala Enterprises

The Mumbai Tribunal reached the same result by a different route in ACIT v. Chandiwala Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITA 219/Mum/2024, decided on 25 July 2024 for assessment year 2020-21. The developer undertook slum rehabilitation projects under development agreements that gave the owners a percentage of the constructed area. The Assessing Officer’s information was that it had “purchased” two properties for Rs 13,81,87,000 and Rs 32,950 against stamp duty values of Rs 80,35,63,000 and Rs 5,81,96,200, and section 56(2)(x) was applied to the differences, Rs 66,53,76,000 and Rs 5,81,63,250. The Tribunal held at paragraph 8 that “the assessee has never purchased any immovable property during the year under consideration”, that it “has only acquired development rights”, being entitled to 80 per cent of the constructed area, and that “Such license cannot be said to be possession within the meaning of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act”. At paragraph 9 it said that “Section 50C of the Act applies to the seller whereas Section 56(2)(x) applies of the buyer”, and that the provision does not apply to a developer that has taken possession for development under a development agreement. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

Chandiwala borrows the landowner-side test (licence or section 53A possession, from the Supreme Court in Seshasayee Steels, which it applied) to decide whether the developer “receives” immovable property. It does not mention the “capital asset of the assessee” definition, which is the stronger answer because it does not depend on the drafting of the JDA. Chandiwala’s reasoning would not protect a developer that takes a registered agreement with possession and pays below the jantri; the statutory definition would, so long as the rights are stock.

The Revenue’s arguments

The Revenue has four. Chandiwala turned on a licence, and a JDA that gives possession with an irrevocable power of attorney, as many Gujarat JDAs do, gives more than a licence. Radhe Developers paragraph 41 treated a developer in possession as owner of the land for the purposes of the Act, so it receives an interest in land. Rights in land are land under the Explanation to section 269UA(d)(i) of the 1961 Act, and under the definition of immovable property in section 2(109) of the 2025 Act. And for an investor-developer that holds the rights as a capital asset, the “capital asset of the assessee” limb is satisfied, so the only question left is whether development rights are land or building.

The developer’s answers follow the same order. The statutory definition excludes stock regardless of possession. The section 269UA definition is not imported into section 56(2)(x), which uses its own definition. And on the last point, the Ahmedabad Tribunal in DCIT v. Minal Urmil Shah, ITA 1075/Ahd/2023, decided on 2 January 2025 for assessment year 2012-13, held at paragraph 10, on the parallel words of section 50C, that “the provision of section 50C of the Act is not found applicable on the transfer of development rights”, because it applies only to a capital asset being land or building or both. That was an additional ground (the primary one, at paragraph 9, was that the assessee was a name-lender who had transferred nothing of her own), and the Tribunal did not consider section 269UA or the Mumbai Tribunal’s decision in Dattani Development (27 July 2016), which held section 50C “clearly applicable even to the sale of development rights in the land”, and in the alternative that land itself had passed when the development agreements were read with the conveyance deeds, before remitting the valuation for a reference to the Valuation Officer. The two Benches conflict on development rights, and a capital-asset developer is exposed on either footing.

Section 43CB and the JDA developer: the argument Aaryan Buildspace does not answer

Section 43CB of the 1961 Act (section 57 of the 2025 Act) requires the profits of “a construction contract” to be computed by the percentage of completion method under the income computation and disclosure standards. The Ahmedabad Tribunal has held that it does not reach a developer, but on facts that leave the JDA developer’s case open, because both decisions concern developers building on their own land.

What Aaryan and Vyapti decided

In DCIT v. Aaryan Buildspace LLP, ITA 1204/Ahd/2024, decided on 7 March 2025 by the “B” Bench (Suchitra Kamble JM and Makarand V. Mahadeokar AM) for assessment year 2018-19, the developer was building “ARYAN OPULENCE” “on its own land” and recognised revenue on conveyance and possession. The Assessing Officer held it to be a construction contract, applied section 43CB, treated customer advances as revenue and added Rs 2,08,61,570. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding at paragraph 8.2 that “Since the assessee does not provide construction services to any third party under a contract, it does not fall within the ambit of Section 43CB of the Act”. In Vyapti Enterprise v. ITO, ITA 835/Ahd/2024, decided on 3 July 2025 by the “C” Bench (T.R. Senthil Kumar JM and Narendra Prasad Sinha AM) for the same year, the developer of “Vandemataram Fabula” at Charodi was also on its own land; the Assessing Officer had applied percentage of completion under Accounting Standard 7, not section 43CB, and added Rs 3,56,16,215. The Tribunal held at paragraph 7 that “the assessee itself is developing the land and not as a contractor”, relied on the consistent acceptance of its method in other years, reproduced Aaryan’s reasoning at paragraph 7.1, and deleted the addition. The two orders were decided by different Benches of the Ahmedabad Tribunal; Vyapti reached section 43CB only by following Aaryan. The wider line is on the section 43CB provision page.

The Revenue’s argument for the landowner’s share

Aaryan’s reason, that the developer provided no construction services “to any third party under a contract”, is exactly what an area-sharing JDA developer does for part of the building. It constructs the landowner’s share on the landowner’s land, to a specification, amenities and completion period fixed in the JDA, often with a penalty for delay, and hands it over. Income computation and disclosure standard III defines a construction contract as “a contract specifically negotiated for the construction of an asset”, and nothing in the definition requires the price to be paid in cash. On the Revenue’s argument the developer has two activities on one plot: a construction contract for the landowner, paid for in land, to which section 43CB mandates percentage of completion, and a sale business on its own share, to which it does not. Paragraph 3.3 of the Guidance Note, made mandatory by paragraph 5.1, requires percentage of completion where acts on the real estate “are, in substance, performed on behalf of the buyer in the manner similar to a contractor”, which is a fair description of building the landowner’s share. Paragraph 3.4 adds that “The economic substance of the transaction is not influenced or affected by the structure and/or legal form of the transaction or agreement”, and an Ind AS developer that treats the landowner as a customer books the landowner’s share as revenue under paragraphs 66 to 69 of Ind AS 115.

The developer’s answer

The JDA is one bargain under which the developer acquires the right to build and sell its share, and pays for it by building the landowner’s. The landowner’s units are not built for a price; they are the price. Standard III applies to “a construction contract of a contractor”, and a developer working on its own account, bearing the cost and risk of the whole project, is not anyone’s contractor. The Gujarat High Court said exactly that of a development-agreement developer in Radhe Developers: “By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the assessee acted only as a works contractor” (paragraph 37). The Guidance Note’s first limb of paragraph 7.2 treats the outlay on the landowner’s built-up area as the cost of acquiring development rights, not as contract cost. And splitting one project into a contract taxed on percentage of completion and a sale business taxed on completion would recognise profit on the landowner’s share, measured by the value of land the developer then holds as stock, while the developer’s own units, on which the real profit is made, are still unsold.

Where it stands

No decision applying section 43CB to the landowner’s share under a JDA was traced.

Revenue-sharing JDAs: Sanand Properties and the developer’s turnover

Under a revenue-sharing JDA in which the landowner has an enforceable right to a fixed share of gross sale proceeds, collected through an escrow and payable before any expense, the developer’s case is that the landowner’s share is diverted at source and is not its income, so that it neither includes that share in its turnover nor deducts it as a cost; the Revenue’s case, where the developer receives the whole price, is that the share is paid out of the developer’s own receipts. The developer’s case rests by analogy on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanand Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Civil Appeals 9107 of 2012, 744 of 2013 and 19487 of 2017, decided on 12 May 2026 by J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan JJ (judgment by Pardiwala J), 2026 INSC 472.

What Sanand decided

Sanand Properties, a private company holding land at Yerawada, Pune, formed an association of persons, Fortaleza Developers, with Raviraj Kothari & Co. by an agreement of 29 April 2003 to develop it. Clause 7 required every sale agreement and receipt to be in the AOP’s name and bank account, and entitled Sanand Properties to “35% of such Receipts”, out of gross proceeds inclusive of the value of land, as its share; out of the balance 65 per cent all expenditure was met and the net was Raviraj Kothari’s. Sanand Properties treated its receipts as an exempt share of AOP income. After a survey in December 2010 the Assessing Officer reopened and, for assessment year 2008-09, added Rs 14,18,52,156. The Tribunal and the Bombay High Court read clause 7 as a profit-sharing clause.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It held at paragraph 97 that the company “was entitled to withdraw a share of 35% of the gross sale proceeds rightaway, even before the expenses were deducted from the gross sale proceeds”, which made the 35 per cent “a diversion for the AOP due to overriding title”. At paragraph 99 it held that the AOP “neither acquires nor retains any control over such portion of the receipts but merely holds and disburses the same on behalf of the SPPL”, so that the share “has to be taxed at the hands of the SPPL itself, and not the AOP”. At paragraph 103 it described the amount as “in pith and substance, a business receipt arising from the surrender of development rights or a share of gross revenue”. It also held (paragraphs 93, 94 and 119) that the construction of clause 7 was a question of law, not a finding of fact.

What it means for the developer

Sanand was an AOP case, not a bilateral JDA, and its transfer to a plain revenue-sharing JDA is by analogy. The analogy is close where the JDA reproduces its features: an escrow or joint account into which all buyers pay, a fixed percentage of gross collections released to the landowner before any cost is met, and a landowner’s share that the developer cannot touch. The ICAI’s EAC Query 34 (2014), on a 62:38 revenue-sharing JDA with a joint escrow swept fortnightly, reached the same answer for the developer’s books, in an opinion that binds no tax authority, for reasons that track paragraph 99: the agreement made the owners’ revenue share “the Owners exclusive property”, and “none of the party has a sole control on the revenue collected” (paragraph 13).

The Revenue’s argument is the other limb of Sitaldas Tirathdas, on which Sanand itself relied at paragraph 98: where the developer receives the whole price into its own account, sells in its own name, and pays the landowner later under a contractual obligation, the whole receipt is the developer’s income and the landowner’s share is paid out of it. In a bilateral JDA that is not the end of the matter, because the payment to the landowner is then the price of the land and is deductible as cost of inventory when the developer’s revenue is recognised. What changes is the turnover, which matters for the tax audit threshold, for the comparison base under section 43CA, and for any deduction calculated on turnover, and the timing where the developer’s own recognition and the landowner’s share fall in different years.

Two further limits. Sanand did not decide the year in which the landowner’s share is taxed, beyond accepting the years of the assessment orders, and it did not decide whether the share would be capital gains in the hands of a landowner holding the land as a capital asset. And where the landowner’s entitlement is a share of profit after expenses, not of gross receipts, Sanand points the other way: the receipt is the developer’s or the AOP’s profit first, and its distribution is an application of income.

Section 43CA under revenue sharing

If the landowner’s share is diverted at source, the developer’s “consideration” for each unit is only its own share of the price. Comparing that share with the stamp duty value of the whole unit would manufacture a section 43CA addition on every sale. The developer’s argument, which matches the Gujarat split-model point above, is that section 43CA asks whether the unit was sold below its stamp duty value, so the comparison is between the whole price and the stamp duty value, however the price is divided. No decision was traced.

Worked example (e): a revenue-sharing JDA year by year, both sides

A worked example shows that the dispute over a revenue-sharing JDA is about turnover and timing, not about total income, so long as the developer is allowed its real cost of land. The facts are illustrative. A landowner company holding a plot near the SG Highway as stock in trade, at a cost of Rs 4 crore, signs a revenue-sharing JDA with a developer firm: the landowner takes 32 per cent of gross sale proceeds, the developer 68 per cent, every buyer pays into a joint escrow released in that ratio, and the developer bears all construction and approval costs of Rs 31 crore and pays an interest-free refundable deposit of Rs 2 crore, recovered out of the landowner’s releases in Year 3. The developer follows project completion and recognises revenue as units are conveyed. Years are labelled as tax years under the Income-tax Act, 2025 for convenience; rates, surcharge and cess are ignored.

Table E1. Project assumptions (illustrative)

Item	Amount (Rs)
Gross sale value of all units (Rs 6,000 a sq ft on 1,00,000 sq ft)	60,00,00,000
Landowner’s share of gross sale proceeds (32 per cent)	19,20,00,000
Developer’s share of gross sale proceeds (68 per cent)	40,80,00,000
Developer’s construction and approval cost, borne entirely by it	31,00,00,000
Landowner company’s cost of the land held as stock in trade	4,00,00,000
Interest-free refundable deposit paid by developer in Year 1, recovered from the landowner’s share in Year 3	2,00,00,000

Table E2. Collections, conveyances and the developer’s cost, year by year

	Year 1 (2026-27)	Year 2 (2027-28)	Year 3 (2028-29)	Year 4 (2029-30)	Total
Collections from buyers into escrow	12,00,00,000	24,00,00,000	18,00,00,000	6,00,00,000	60,00,00,000
Value of units conveyed to buyers	0	0	48,00,00,000	12,00,00,000	60,00,00,000
Developer’s cost incurred (to work in progress)	9,00,00,000	12,00,00,000	10,00,00,000	0	31,00,00,000
Developer’s cost charged against revenue	0	0	24,80,00,000	6,20,00,000	31,00,00,000

Table E3. The developer: its own share only (Sanand, EAC Query 34) against the gross view

	Year 1 (2026-27)	Year 2 (2027-28)	Year 3 (2028-29)	Year 4 (2029-30)	Total
A. Turnover: developer’s 68 per cent of units conveyed	0	0	32,64,00,000	8,16,00,000	40,80,00,000
A. Profit	0	0	7,84,00,000	1,96,00,000	9,80,00,000
B. Turnover: 100 per cent of units conveyed	0	0	48,00,00,000	12,00,00,000	60,00,00,000
B. Landowner’s 32 per cent charged as cost of land	0	0	15,36,00,000	3,84,00,000	19,20,00,000
B. Profit	0	0	7,84,00,000	1,96,00,000	9,80,00,000

Table E4. The landowner company (land held as stock in trade): two readings of when its share is income

	Year 1 (2026-27)	Year 2 (2027-28)	Year 3 (2028-29)	Year 4 (2029-30)	Total
Landowner’s 32 per cent of collections released from escrow (before deposit recovery)	3,84,00,000	7,68,00,000	5,76,00,000	1,92,00,000	19,20,00,000
Cash actually released to landowner (Year 3 net of Rs 2 crore deposit recovered)	3,84,00,000	7,68,00,000	3,76,00,000	1,92,00,000	17,20,00,000
L1. Income if taxed as collected (Revenue, Sanand para 99)	3,04,00,000	6,08,00,000	4,56,00,000	1,52,00,000	15,20,00,000
L2. Income if taxed on conveyance (landowner, Anushka, EAC Query 16)	0	0	12,16,00,000	3,04,00,000	15,20,00,000

Check: developer total profit A = B = Rs 9,80,00,000; landowner total income L1 = L2 = Rs 15,20,00,000; the deposit of Rs 2,00,00,000 is neither the developer’s expense nor the landowner’s income in any year.

Reading the tables. Table E3 is the developer. On reading A, which Sanand Properties and EAC Query 34 support for an escrow JDA, the developer’s turnover is its 68 per cent, Rs 40.80 crore, and its profit is Rs 9.80 crore, recognised in Years 3 and 4 as units are conveyed. On reading B, the Revenue’s gross view, its turnover is Rs 60 crore and the landowner’s 32 per cent is charged as cost of land in the same years, giving the same profit. If the Revenue were to go further and treat the landowner’s share as an application of income that is never deductible, the developer would be taxed on Rs 29 crore of profit against a real profit of Rs 9.80 crore; that is the argument the cost-of-land analysis answers, and no decision supports it. Table E4 is the landowner company. On reading L1, the Revenue’s use of Sanand paragraph 99, it is taxed on each release from escrow, less a proportionate part of its land cost, so Rs 3.04 crore is taxed in Year 1, before a single unit is complete; on reading L2, Anushka Estates and EAC Query 16, it is taxed when the units are conveyed. Total income is Rs 15.20 crore either way. Had the landowner been an individual holding the land as a capital asset, its share would be capital gains and the year of charge would be the question decided in Part 1; section 45(5A) would not help, because its consideration must be a share “being land or building or both”.

Cancellation and termination: compensation received and paid by the developer

On the Ahmedabad Tribunal’s record, compensation a developer receives when a landowner cancels a development agreement and sells to someone else is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax, because what the developer gives up is a right to sue, which is neither property nor a capital asset. The Gujarat High Court has not tested that line on its merits, and the Mumbai Tribunal has treated compensation paid with a purchase of land held as stock as a trading receipt.

The Ahmedabad line

In Popular Estate Management Ltd. v. ITO, ITA 212/Ahd/2014, decided on 29 August 2017 for assessment year 2009-10, a real estate company held three unregistered development agreements of 2007 and 2008 over land at Sanand and Thaltej. The owners terminated them in 2008, paid the company Rs 3,87,27,804 in all “in lieu of terminating right to sue for preemptive purchase”, and the individual owners sold to third parties. The Tribunal held at paragraph 16 that the company had “merely obtained a licensee right to enter into possession”, that possession could not pass because the agricultural lands were unconverted and section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act stood in the way, and that the compensation was “not liable to be treated as income u/s.2(24) of the Act nor the same is taxable as capital gain”, being a capital receipt; it rejected the tax-evasion and colourable-device pleas at paragraphs 17 and 18. In Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA 2449/Ahd/2016, decided on 17 September 2018 for assessment year 2008-09, a developer received Rs 2,47,03,600 when the owner under a development agreement of 30 March 2007 sold to others. The Tribunal held that “the ‘right to sue’ is a right in personam” that cannot be transferred (paragraph 10.1), that the receipt “is of capital nature which is not chargeable to tax under s.45” (paragraph 10.4), and that it “was not received as a result of termination of advantages associated with development rights” (paragraph 12). Popular Estate’s later appeal for assessment year 2012-13, decided on 8 January 2020 on Rs 18,02,53,000, followed both, holding at paragraph 9.8 that even on the Commissioner (Appeals)’ finding that the money went round a group of related parties, a circular transaction gives rise to no income. The Mumbai Tribunal followed Bhojison in Chheda Housing Development Corporation (29 May 2019), where a developer received Rs 20 crore including its Rs 2.50 crore advance, holding at paragraph 20 that the excess was “compensation for extinction of its right to sue the owner”, a capital receipt.

The Revenue’s line, and the High Court

The Revenue’s best authority is Shirish M. Dalvi v. DCIT, decided by the Mumbai Tribunal on 31 October 2022 for assessment year 2010-11. The assessee was the landowner: he had brought land held as stock in trade, with its development rights, into a joint venture with Godrej Properties for 60 per cent of the profit, and on cancellation on 8 April 2009 received Rs 3 crore “by way of compensation” while agreeing to convey the land to Godrej at the ready reckoner value, for which he received Rs 6.5 crore. Because the payer was buying the land, the Tribunal reasoned at paragraph 17.2 that “whatever compensation is actually towards the land”, and held that any amount received against land held as stock in trade, “by wahtatever name called” (sic), is a trading receipt, and at paragraph 17.4 that merely calling it compensation in the cancellation deed does not make it compensation for surrendering a business. The developer’s answer is that Dalvi was a landowner’s sale of its own stock to the payer, not a developer’s surrender of rights against an owner who sold elsewhere. The Revenue adds that where the JDA itself fixes compensation on termination, as Popular Estate’s clauses did, the money is received under the contract, not for a bare right to sue; and that a developer that repeatedly enters and exits agreements for compensation is trading in them, which Glowshine’s factual enquiry would expose. Where the rights were a capital asset, the Revenue’s alternative is that their extinguishment is a transfer under section 2(47)(ii) taxable as capital gains, the line of K.R. Srinath (Madras High Court) as the Mumbai Tribunal described it in Chheda Housing (paragraph 21) before distinguishing it because the owner had already sold to a third party. The Revenue also presses symmetry: the landowner deducts the same compensation under section 48, as in Jagdishchandra B. Patel and in A M Builders (Bangalore Tribunal, 6 April 2023, paragraph 6.3), so the receipt should not escape on the other side; Popular Estate (2017, paragraph 17) turned the point round, rejecting the tax-evasion plea because the Department had accepted the vendors’ deductions of the same payments “without questioning any genuineness element therein”.

In the Gujarat High Court, the Revenue’s appeal in Bhojison (Tax Appeal 75 of 2019) was admitted on 25 June 2019 on whether the Tribunal erred in deleting Rs 2,47,03,600 as a receipt on cancellation, and disposed of on 7 January 2022 as not pressed for low tax effect, with liberty to revive. Two Revenue appeals against Popular Estate, one on quantum and one on penalty, were disposed of on 16 September 2026 on the same ground. A third, Tax Appeal 240 of 2020, was admitted on 22 September 2020 on substantial questions including whether the receipt is business income; its outcome was not traced. The Ahmedabad line therefore has no High Court approval on merits, and a developer relying on it should know that one admitted appeal may still produce a ruling. The developer’s position is strongest where nothing was built, the owner breached and sold elsewhere, and a suit or arbitration was threatened; the Revenue’s is strongest where the rights were stock, work had begun, and the JDA fixed the compensation.

Compensation paid by the developer, forfeited deposits and re-entry

Money a developer pays to clear a site or settle an earlier developer’s claim has been allowed as a business deduction. In ACIT v. Ankur Foundation, decided by the Chennai Tribunal on 7 March 2022 for assessment year 2010-11, an incoming developer paid Rs 200 lakh to settle the claim of the earlier JDA developer and, when the project did not proceed, claimed it as an expense; the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’ deletion of the disallowance at paragraph 4, finding the payment made “in the regular course of its business to settle the claim of the earlier developer”, though the sum was later recovered and offered to tax, which limits the decision’s weight. In Haware Infrastructure (Mumbai Tribunal, 31 May 2019) the Tribunal held at paragraph 42 that reducing work in progress by Rs 50.84 crore, paid “for removing encumbrances”, settling litigation and acquiring a clear development right, was not justified, and directed that it be treated as revenue expenditure. On the landowner’s side, the Ahmedabad Tribunal in Jagdishchandra B. Patel (16 May 2017) allowed under section 48(i) an arbitral award of Rs 10,61,47,415 paid to a terminated developer before the land was sold. The Revenue’s answer is Dalmia Jain’s principle, as summarised in Haware, that money paid to cure title to a capital asset is capital, and that where the rights are stock the payment is inventory cost deducted only when the units are recognised, not in the year paid.

The refund of a refundable deposit is income of neither side; interest or compensation paid for refunding it late is income of the developer that receives it. A developer that loses a deposit on termination, with its rights held as stock, claims a business loss in the year the loss becomes certain, not a bad debt, because the deposit was never income. The Revenue will say the loss is premature while recovery is pending, or capital where the rights were an investment. For the landowner who forfeits the deposit, two provisions are in play. Section 51 deducts from cost “any advance or other money received and retained by the assessee in respect of such negotiations”, and section 56(2)(ix) taxes as income from other sources a sum “received as an advance or otherwise in the course of negotiations for transfer of a capital asset” that is forfeited where “the negotiations do not result in transfer”. The proviso to section 51 orders them: a sum taxed under clause (ix) is not also deducted from cost (section 81(b) of the 2025 Act is to the same effect), so section 51 now reaches only a retained advance not taxed under clause (ix). The Ahmedabad Tribunal in Dharnidhar Developers (30 April 2026) read clause (ix) as reaching only a forfeiture by the owner of the asset, and not one made before the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 received assent on 6 August 2014. The Revenue’s argument is that “advance or otherwise” is wide, and that a JDA terminated before any transfer, above all a section 45(5A) agreement whose charge waits for a certificate that never comes, is a negotiation that did not result in transfer. The landowner’s answer is that a security deposit under a concluded agreement is not received “in the course of negotiations”, and that if the JDA had already effected a transfer under section 2(47)(v), the negotiations did result in one, so the sum is part of the consideration for that transfer. A landowner holding the land as stock is outside both sections and has a business receipt; in Rakesh Motilal Sharma (Pune Tribunal, 18 June 2026), where the landowner, whose land was admittedly stock in trade, had by a legal notice of 24 June 2022 declared a Rs 10 crore deposit forfeited with the outcome unknown, the Tribunal remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) the taxability of the deposit itself (paragraph 11). The Bangalore Tribunal in Govindappa Jayaram Doddiah (13 November 2024, paragraphs 10 and 11) held that Rs 1,18,30,789, which an arbitral award of 1 July 2024 let the landowner retain out of a Rs 1.25 crore deposit as compensation for short delivery, was not income of assessment year 2021-22, there being no certainty before the award, and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to add it in assessment year 2024-25, as the owner had undertaken. No decision on a forfeited JDA deposit under section 56(2)(ix) was traced.

Where a landowner re-enters after termination and takes over a partly built structure without paying, the developer writes off its work in progress as a business loss of that year; no decision on the landowner’s tax position in that event was found. The same analysis applies where a developer’s insolvency stalls the project and the JDA is terminated: the developer’s loss would ordinarily crystallise on termination or on the resolution plan, while the landowner’s year of transfer and accrual, which the Visakhapatnam Tribunal addressed in Maganti Subrahmanyam Choudary (9 September 2026), is decided in Part 1. No income-tax decision on the developer’s side of an insolvency was traced, so when the loss becomes certain, and how a resolution applicant that completes the landowner’s share measures its own cost, are untested.

Assigning JDA rights to another developer

A developer that assigns its rights under a JDA for a price makes business income if the rights were its stock, and capital gains if they were a capital asset, and Glowshine makes that a question of fact. Where the rights were inventory and the developer is a regular developer, the assignment price less the cost incurred (cash paid, stamp duty, approvals, any construction) is business profit; Kasat went further, treating a trader’s relinquishment within two years as business income despite an investment entry. Where the rights were held for years without development, as in Parmar Properties, the gain is capital gains. For a transfer in assessment year 2024-25 or later the Revenue may invoke section 55(2)(a), which since Act 8 of 2023 gives “any other right” a nil cost unless acquired by purchase from a previous owner, and argue that rights obtained in exchange for construction were not purchased; the developer’s answer is that an exchange is a purchase paid for in kind. No decision on the point was traced; for earlier years cost is the actual outlay. No decision on the holding period of development rights was traced; the date of the JDA is the natural start, though the Revenue may argue that the right crystallises only on plan sanction.

Section 50C reaches a capital asset “being land or building or both”, and Minal Urmil Shah held that it does not apply to a transfer of development rights. The Revenue relies on the stamp duty charged on the assignment deed and on Dattani Development (Mumbai Tribunal, 27 July 2016), which held section 50C applicable to a sale of development rights in land and, in the alternative, found that land had passed on reading the deeds with the conveyances; on that conflict the Ahmedabad Bench would follow one view on like facts or recommend that the President constitute a Special Bench under section 255(3). In Pushpak Homes (Mumbai Tribunal, 23 September 2019) a developer had assigned its development rights to another developer for cash, TDR and a free flat in the new building, and sold that flat before it was built; the Commissioner (Appeals) treated the gain as business income outside section 50C, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, and it held at paragraph 7 that the flat was taxable in the year it was received from the builder or handed over. Where an outgoing developer assigns its rights to a new developer with the landowners’ concurrence, the landowners make no transfer by that assignment: Mohammed Samir Ur Rahaman (Hyderabad Tribunal, 27 February 2024).

When the landowner sells his flats

The landowner’s flats are the landowner’s property, and their sale proceeds are his income, not the developer’s turnover and not a transfer by the developer to which section 43CA could apply. Where the developer markets and collects for the landowner, as it must where the deposit is recovered from the landowner’s sales, the collections are money held for the landowner, in Sanand’s phrase money the collector “merely holds and disburses”, and should pass through a separate account with any brokerage the developer charges booked as its own income. The buyer of a landowner’s flat deducts under section 194-IA against the landowner, not the developer; a deduction made in the developer’s permanent account number creates the credit mismatch dealt with in Part 6.

Section 80-IB(10) and section 80-IBA for a developer under a JDA

A developer that builds under a development agreement without owning the land can claim the housing project deduction, on the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Radhe Developers, provided it bears the risk and cost of development and is not a works contractor. In the lead case the developer claimed Rs 24,75,940 under section 80-IB(10) on a project built under a development agreement of 18 May 2000 and an agreement to buy the land at a fixed price; title had not passed and approvals were not in its name. The Court held at paragraph 30 that “The provisions nowhere required that only those developers who themselves own the land would receive the deduction”, at paragraph 37 that the developer had not acted “only as a works contractor”, and at paragraph 41, alternatively, that it satisfied any ownership condition. Cite it as Tax Appeal 546 of 2008, 13 December 2011, reported as (2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj), the citation the High Court itself gives in Swastik Associates. In CIT-III v. Swastik Associates (7 May 2014) the High Court applied Radhe to a developer working on a cooperative society’s land with permission in the society’s name, holding that “All parameters appearing on record are identical to those appearing in Radhe Developers” and calling it “rather unfortunate” that such appeals kept coming. The Ahmedabad Tribunal has followed the same line in Tarnetar Corporation (24 May 2011) and Shri Hari Associates (18 August 2017 and, on the same appeals, 26 April 2019).

Section 80-IBA is, if anything, plainer: its text contains no word of ownership at all. It is open only to a project approved by the competent authority after 1 June 2016 and on or before 31 March 2022 (section 80-IBA(2)(a)), as section 80-IB(10) was only to projects approved before 31 March 2008, so neither helps a JDA signed today. Its only structural exclusion is sub-section (3), for an assessee “who executes the housing project as a works-contract awarded by any person”. The general treatment is in the affordable housing article and on the section 80-IBA provision page. Three JDA points are added here. First, the landowner who only contributes land cannot claim: the Chennai Tribunal in ITO v. Anjli Foundations (ITA 722/Chny/2019, 28 January 2021) denied section 80-IB(10) to a landowner firm that had given half its land under a 50:50 JDA and claimed the deduction on gross sales of Rs 4,07,53,750, holding at paragraph 9 that “it had no interest in the development or in the cost of construction, which the Developer alone had to bear” and that as owner of the land “there was no risk to the assessee”. Secondly, the Revenue’s untested argument under section 80-IBA(3) is that a developer building the landowner’s share to the landowner’s specification executes that part of the project as a works contract awarded by the landowner; the developer’s answer is that the exclusion applies to an assessee who executes “the housing project” as a works contract, not a share of it, and that Radhe paragraph 37 answers the characterisation. No section 80-IBA decision on a JDA was found. Thirdly, allotting several residential units in an eligible project to one landowner raises the one-unit condition in section 80-IBA(2)(g) (clause (h) for a project approved on or after 1 September 2019), a point the affordable housing article argues and which is best avoided in the JDA itself. The same exposure arises from the size of the landowner’s units: the per-unit area limits apply to every residential unit in the project, including those handed to the landowner, so one oversized landowner unit can cost the developer the deduction on the whole project; no decision on that was traced. Under the Income-tax Act, 2025, section 142 allows the deduction only where the assessee is eligible under section 80-IBA “as if the said Act had not been repealed”, so the works-contract exclusion in section 80-IBA(3) travels with it.

Gujarat: what the record shows

The Gujarat record on the developer’s side of a JDA is narrower than on the landowner’s. On the housing deduction, Radhe Developers and Swastik Associates in the High Court, and Tarnetar and Shri Hari Associates (2017 and 2019) in the Tribunal, settle in Gujarat that a developer bearing risk and cost need not own the land. On cancellation, Popular Estate (2017 and 2020) and Bhojison (2018) in the Ahmedabad Tribunal treat compensation for surrendering a right to sue as a capital receipt, with the High Court having disposed of the Revenue’s appeals on low tax effect and one admitted appeal, Tax Appeal 240 of 2020, untraced. On recognition, Aaryan Buildspace and Vyapti Enterprise, decided by different Benches, keep a developer on its own land off section 43CB; neither involved a JDA. Minal Urmil Shah (2025) holds development rights outside section 50C, against the Mumbai Tribunal’s view in Dattani Development (2016). On searches, Radhe Developers (Anand) (3 August 2022), the Ahmedabad split-document on-money case, is discussed with the search and on-money law for both sides in Part 6 and the on-money article.

No Gujarat decision was traced on the developer’s cost of land under a JDA, on section 43CA on the handover of a landowner’s share or on the split-document comparison, on section 56(2)(x) applied to development rights, on a revenue-sharing developer after Sanand, or on an assignment of JDA rights. Where Mumbai, Bangalore or Chennai has decided a point, the Ahmedabad Bench sits as a coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal: it follows a reasoned decision on like facts or recommends that the President constitute a Special Bench under section 255(3) (section 364(4) of the 2025 Act).

Open questions in Part 5, argued both ways

Nine questions on the developer’s side of a JDA remain undecided at High Court level, and each is set out with its strongest argument on both sides.

1. Are development rights stock or a capital asset? For the developer that wants business treatment: inventory, regular development, and Kasat, where a trader’s relinquishment was business income despite an investment entry. For the Revenue or a developer that wants capital treatment: Glowshine says the books are not conclusive; Parmar shows rights held as an investment.

2. Does the cost of building the landowner’s share count towards the 25 per cent threshold for percentage of completion? For the developer: it is cost of land under paragraphs 2.2(a) and 7.2 of the Guidance Note, which the threshold excludes. For the Revenue: it is construction cost by nature under paragraph 2.3. Undecided.

3. Does section 43CA reach the handover of the landowner’s share? For the Revenue: an exchange is a transfer, Radhe paragraph 41 treats a developer in possession as owner, and Ind AS 115 books a sale. For the developer: nothing it owns is transferred, no consideration is fixed, and the exchange is profit-neutral. No decision.

4. In the Gujarat split model, what does section 43CA compare? For the developer: the whole unit price against the stamp duty value of the whole unit. For the Revenue: the developer’s own consideration. Undecided.

5. Can section 56(2)(x) reach development rights? For the developer: property means a capital asset of the assessee, and Chandiwala holds a licence is not receipt of property. For the Revenue: possession with a power of attorney is more than a licence, and an investor-developer holds a capital asset. Decided for the developer on the facts in Chandiwala; the definition point is untested.

6. Is the landowner’s share a construction contract under section 43CB? For the Revenue: the developer builds it for the landowner to a negotiated specification. For the developer: it is the price of land in one bargain, and Radhe paragraph 37. Aaryan and Vyapti concern own-land developers. No decision.

7. Does Sanand extend to a bilateral revenue-sharing JDA? For the developer: an escrow and a fixed share of gross receipts reproduce clause 7, and EAC Query 34 agrees. For the Revenue: where the developer receives the whole price and pays later, it is an application of the developer’s receipts. Undecided outside the AOP.

8. Is cancellation compensation a capital receipt? For the developer: the Ahmedabad right-to-sue line and Chheda, and that Dalvi was a landowner’s sale of stock to the payer. For the Revenue: Dalvi, contractual compensation clauses, and rights held as stock. Tax Appeal 240 of 2020 is pending as far as traced.

9. Does section 80-IBA(3) exclude a JDA developer as to the landowner’s share? For the Revenue: that part is a works contract awarded by the landowner. For the developer: the exclusion speaks of the housing project, and Radhe paragraph 37. No decision.

A developer’s checklist for a JDA

Most of a JDA developer’s disputes are decided by documents signed before construction begins, and each step below states the risk it guards against.

1. Record the character of the rights from the first day. Inventory entry, a resolution and an early plan application; the risk otherwise is a Glowshine dispute over head of income on any later assignment or cancellation.
2. Carry the landowner’s share at actual cost in work in progress. Do not charge it in the handover year; the risk is a distortion the Assessing Officer can correct, and a loss that may be disallowed.
3. Keep the refundable deposit out of work in progress. Show it as a receivable until the JDA converts it; the risk is a disallowed “cost” now and income on refund later.
4. Describe the landowner’s flats as his own construction, not as allotted or sold by the developer. The risk of a registered allotment at nil consideration is a section 43CA addition on the handover.
5. Take part of every booking through the bank before the agreement date. Without it the agreement-date rule is lost and the unit is tested on the jantri at registration.
6. Make the aggregate price visible in the split model. Recite the land price and the construction price in both deeds; the risk is an addition measured on the construction price alone.
7. Under revenue sharing, use an escrow released in the agreed ratio. It is what brings the JDA within Sanand and EAC Query 34; without it the Revenue will treat the whole price as the developer’s turnover.
8. Write the termination clause with the right to sue in mind. Compensation fixed by the JDA itself is the Revenue’s best case for a trading receipt; record the breach and the claim given up.
9. Bear the risk and cost, and record it. Radhe and Anjli turn on who bears them; a fixed fee for construction invites the works-contract exclusion.
10. For an Ind AS company, model the gross-up under section 206 of the 2025 Act. Book profit on the landowner’s share may not be recovered through credit.

Concordance: the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income-tax Act, 2025

Every provision this Part decides has a counterpart in the Income-tax Act, 2025, and the verified pairs are these.

Subject	Income-tax Act, 1961	Income-tax Act, 2025
Transfer: extinguishment of rights; part performance; enjoyment of immovable property	s.2(47), clauses (ii), (v) and (vi)	s.2(109), clauses (b), (g) and (f)
Capital asset	s.2(14)	s.2(22)
Stamp duty value for stock in trade	s.43CA	s.53
Construction and service contracts	s.43CB	s.57
Conversion of a capital asset into stock in trade	s.45(2)	s.67(6)
Capital gains under a specified agreement	s.45(5A) and proviso	s.67(14) to (16)
Mode of computation of capital gains	s.48	s.72
Stamp duty value for a capital asset	s.50C	s.78
Advance money received	s.51	s.81
Forfeited advance as income	s.56(2)(ix)	s.92(2)(h)
Immovable property received below stamp duty value	s.56(2)(x)(b); “property” in Expl. (d) to s.56(2)(vii)	s.92(2)(m)(ii); “property” in s.92(5)(f)
Rights in land as immovable property	Expl. to s.269UA(d)(i)	definition of “immovable property” in s.2(109)
Housing project deduction	s.80-IBA	s.142
Minimum alternate tax and alternate minimum tax	ss.115JB and 115JC	s.206(1) and (2)
Tax deduction on immovable property and on a specified agreement	ss.194-IA and 194-IC	s.393(1), Table serials 3(i) and 3(ii)
Disallowance for failure to deduct	s.40(a)(ia)	s.35(b)(i)
Special Bench constituted by the President	s.255(3) (Special Bench limb)	s.364(4)

Each pair was checked against the Department’s page for the 2025 Act section, reading the Act field on the page, in the research for this series; sections 28(iv), 36(1)(iii), 40A(3), 55(2)(a) and 80-IB(10) are not listed because their counterparts were not verified.

This note is general commentary on the law as at 24 October 2026 and is not advice on any matter. The position in a particular case depends on its own facts.