JDA is a common factor in the real estate sector linked between the landowner and the developer in an agreement on the construction of new buildings/projects. In return, the developer accepts, as i. package in return, ii. The percentage of the proceeds of the sale or a certain percentage of the newly constructed project on the land in question depends on the conditions set jointly by the parties. (The above article was written on December 5, 2019 and co-authored by CA. Yogesh Ingale, CA Tushar Ajmera and CMA. Anuj Chordiya. The opinions expressed are strictly personal. For questions and comments, contact us under [email protected]) In many parts of the country, there is a practice of having a land registry and a separate registry for built housing. Thus, in such cases, an evaluation problem often arises.

In the case of IN RE: M/S. KARA PROPERTY VENTURES LLP 2019 (3) TMI 924 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADUTHE Assessee has entered into two separate agreements, one for the sale of a share of unshared land and the other for the construction of a complex service to the buyer, with two separate considerations being required of the buyer. That is how a question was raised about the tax measure. The AAR decided that the two agreements were coexisting and ongoing simultaneously; Any contract cannot be terminated without the termination of the other, it is a single delivery, which falls entirely under entry 5 (b) of Schedule II of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which makes this transaction a “complex construction” service and it is therefore established that the GST can be raised to 2/3 of the total value of the two agreements. In the case of MAARQ Spaces (P.) Ltd., 2019 (11) TMI 994 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA Antragsteller has entered into a joint development agreement with the landowners for the development of residential layout land and the costs of the development are borne by the applicant. Revenues from land sales are shared in a ratio of 75 percent for landowners and 25 percent for applicants. It was found that the activities carried out by the applicant are treated as a service to landowners and that the taxable value of the supply within the meaning of Rule 31 (residual rules with reasonable means compatible with the principles and general provisions of Article 15) corresponds to the total amount received by the applicant. However, the Hon`ble ITAT Hyderabad Bench `B` is in the case of Adhinarayana Reddy Kummeta v.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Hyderabad 2018 (4) TMI 37 – ITAT HYDERABAD found that Section 45(5A) cannot be applied as a substantive provision to the previously concluded development agreement, which would certainly be drawn to Section 2(47)(v). . . .