ITAT Hyderabad has decided that if nothing happened in the previous year, except for the performance of the contract or the lack of progress or construction, the developers cannot be considered to have fulfilled their obligation in accordance with Section 53A of the Transfer of Ownership Act. According to various court statements, in the case of JDA, the capital gain is realized in the year in which the contract is concluded with the developer in connection with the possession of land. However, there was no explicit provision in the Information Technology Act; But that is what the courts have interpreted. The point of controversy was therefore the year of income taxation. Whether it is the contract year or the year in which the landowner receives his share of the developer`s land. Even more, the FM language shows as “149. The only taxable turnover in such cases is the value of the works/contracts of enterprise. The sale of land should therefore not be taxable. 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. .