Archive · 11 Sep 2026
ITAT Bangalore Rejects Double Taxation of JDA Rental Income
A group of landowners and a developer built a commercial property together.
They created a registered partnership firm to manage the building.
Companies rented the building, and the rent went into the firm’s bank account.
The firm reported this rent to the tax department and paid tax on it.
Later, officials decided that the landowners should also pay tax on the same rent.
The landowners said this would mean taxing the same money twice.
The tribunal agreed that the firm was genuine and had correctly reported the income.
It also said that money withdrawn by partners did not automatically become rental income for the landowners.
Therefore, the landowners did not have to pay tax on the rental income again.
The ITAT Bangalore ruled that rental income already assessed in a genuine partnership firm cannot be taxed again to individual landowners.
The dispute involved Block C1, a commercial building developed under a joint development agreement.
Rent from the building was credited directly to the registered partnership firm’s bank account.
The tax department treated the landowners as the building’s actual owners and apportioned the rental income among them.
The tribunal said partner withdrawals and payment of property tax did not, by themselves, establish that the landowners received the rental income.
- Who
- Individual landowners, a registered partnership firm, the developer, and the Income Tax Department were involved.
- What
- The ITAT Bangalore ruled that rental income already assessed in the partnership firm could not be taxed again in the landowners’ hands.
- When
- The judgment was pronounced on 21 August; the tax search occurred in June 2022, and the JDA was executed in March 2005.
- Where
- The dispute concerned Block C1 in a Special Economic Zone and was decided by the ITAT Bangalore.
- Why
- The tribunal found that the partnership firm owned the building for tax purposes, received and disclosed the rent, and had already been assessed on that income.
Landowners and partnership firm
Income Tax Department
Who earned the rent?
Landowners and partnership firm
The registered partnership firm was the genuine co-developer and owner of Block C1, and it recorded and disclosed the rental receipts.
Income Tax Department
The landowners were the actual owners of the building, so the rental income should be apportioned among them.
Effect of prior assessment
Landowners and partnership firm
Because the department had already assessed the firm on the rental income, taxing the landowners again would amount to double taxation.
Income Tax Department
The department added the rental income to the landowners’ taxable income after treating them as the property owners.
Meaning of partner withdrawals
Landowners and partnership firm
Withdrawals from the firm’s bank account were debits to partners’ capital accounts and did not represent rental income or transfer ownership.
Income Tax Department
The assessing officer relied partly on withdrawals by owner-partners as evidence supporting taxation in the landowners’ hands.
- Tribunal
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore
- Property
- Block C1, a commercial building in a Special Economic Zone
- Development arrangement
- The property was developed under a joint development agreement signed in March 2005.
- Rental receipts
- Rent was credited directly to the partnership firm’s bank account.
- Tax department’s action
- Officials apportioned the rental income among the landowners under “Income from House Property.”
- Search date
- June 2022
- Ruling date
- 21 August