IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1926/Bang/2024 ITA No. 299/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2013-14 Dasa Shetty Kantha, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of No.69, Usha Kiran Complex, Income Tax, Sarakki Gate, Kanakapura Main Road, Circle – 6(3)(1) &

Bengaluru – 560 078. Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore.

PAN – AIHPK 1104 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Hari Pd. Nayak, AR Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT Date of hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025

O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 28-10-2024 and 9-11-2023 for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2013-14 having DIN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1069986307(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057851446(1)

2013-14 respectively.

2. First, we take up ITA No. 299/Bang/2024, an appeal by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11

3. The assessee has raised as many as 12 grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the assessment on technical and merit of the addition made by the authorities below. For the sake of brevity, we are not inclined to reproduce the grounds of appeal.

4. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos. 1, 2, 11 and 12 are general in nature and therefore, the same do not require any separate adjudication. Likewise, the issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 10 pertain to the levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, all these grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous.

5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos. 2 to 6 are interconnected challenging the validity of the assessment. However, we note that issue raised through these grounds of appeal has not been pressed by the ld. AR as per the instruction of the assessee. Hence, we dismiss the same as not pressed.

6. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos. 7 to 9 pertains to the addition of long-term capital on the transfer of land under JDA for development of residential flats.

7. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee during the A.Y. 2007-08 has purchased 2 plots of land admeasuring 1 acer and 2183 sq. ft. situated at survey No. 16/1, Nylasandra village, Kengeri Hubli. In the respect of impugned land properties, the assessee entered into Join Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s Vaashu Structure Pvt Ltd (builder/developer) dated 27^th January 2010 (for 1 acer) and 31^st July 2010 (for 2183 sq. ft.). As per the impugned JDAs, the assessee given the entire land property to the builder/developer for construction of residential complex. In the terms of the JDAs, He was entitled to receive 35% of super built-up area in lieu of land property given by him.

8. Subsequently, through supplementary JDA dated 21^st January 2011 the flats (32 flats, 38093 sq. ft.) were allotted as the share of the assessee. After the completion of construction, the assessee received his share of flats during A.Y. 2013-14. Thereafter the assessee sold those flats and offered capital gain directly on the sale of flats in the respective assessment year (in A.Y. 2013-14 and in subsequent years).

9. The AO was of the view that on the date of JDA, the land property was transferred to builder/developer for construction which amount to transfer of capital assets as per the provision of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is liable to offer capital in the year of JDA on the deemed value of cost of construction of his share of flats. In support of the view taken, the AO referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay vs. CIT reported in (2003) 260 ITR 491 and decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. DR. T.K. Dayalu reported in (2011) 14 taxmann.com