JDA STRUCTURING: A 360-DEGREE VIEW

Joint development of real estate – A win-win for both landowner and developer?

What are the possible risk factors?

Why this article?

1. Outright sale of land / grant of development rights by the landowner to the developer against a fixed monetary consideration either paid upfront or in deferred instalments over the project period.
2. Grant of development rights by the landowner to the developer against sharing of gross revenue earned by the developer from the sale of the project.
3. Grant of development rights by the landowner to the developer against sharing of net profits earned by the developer from the project.
4. Grant of development rights by the landowner to the developer against sharing of area developed by the developer in a pre-determined ratio.

How does one choose an appropriate structure?

From the landowners’ perspective, the structure could be determined based on the fine balancing of the timing of the transfer of legal title in the property from the landowner and the timing of the flow of consideration to him. Throw in the subjective metrics of the risk-taking ability of the stakeholders and the level of comfort that the landowner and the developer have with each other in terms of the extent of trust and / or mistrust, and the entire equation starts becoming fuzzy. To add to the fizz, compliance obligations under regulations like RERA and restrictions under FEMA could also act as show-stoppers.

Ameet Hariani says, ‘For example, under RERA it is the promoter’s obligation to obtain title insurance of the real estate project. The relevant section of RERA, among other things, requires a promoter to obtain all such insurances as may be notified by the appropriate Government, including in respect of the title of the land and building forming the real estate project and in respect of the construction of the said project. Since both the landowner as well as the developer will be classified as promoters, it would be prudent for parties entering into a JDA to specify which party (among the “promoters”) will be responsible for obtaining the title insurance for the project.’

In some transaction structures, tax obligations (both direct tax as well as indirect tax – GST and, not to forget, stamp duty) could act as the final nail in the coffin. For example, the upfront exposure towards payment of stamp duty and income-tax coupled with the ab initio parting of the title may rule out the possibility of an outright sale of land by the landowner against deferred consideration from the developer. As stated by Ameet Hariani, ‘From a legal perspective, legal rights should be retained by the landowner till the performance by the developer of the developer’s obligations. Only then should legal rights be transferred.’

While stamp duty is a duty on the execution of the document and could be paid by either of the parties, Ameet Hariani has this to say, ‘So far as stamp duty implications are concerned, normally these are borne by the developer. All documents relating to immovable property should be registered and consequently the quantum of stamp duty is an important determinant to be worked out.’

The above factors are relevant from the developer’s perspective as well. However, many more aspects become relevant. While the landowner would like to protect and retain his title in the property to the last possible milestone, for the developer a restricted right in the land could present significant constraints in financing the project, especially if he is dependent on funding from banks. Ameet Hariani has a word of advice, ‘Legally speaking, agreements for development rights are significantly different from those for sale of land. Courts have held that some types of development agreements cannot be specifically enforced. The key is to ensure that the development agreements that are executed should be capable of being specifically enforced.’ More importantly, the marketability of the project to the end customer / investor depends significantly on the buyer taking a loan from the bank. Therefore, the customer’s and the customer’s lending institution’s perception of the transaction structure and the clarity of the title of land become very important factors.

Hence, Ameet Hariani warns, ‘Financial institutions normally will not give finance in respect of the development agreement unless there is a specific clause in the development agreement entitling the developer to raise finance on the property; and the developer must also have the right to also mortgage the developer’s proportionate share in the land. This often makes the landowner extremely uncomfortable, especially because the landowner’s contribution, i.e., the land comes into the “hotchpotch” almost immediately. This is a matter that is often debated strongly while financing the development agreement’. The local development regulations and restrictions may also play an important part. ‘Is the plot size economically viable? Is there some arbitrage available due to an adjacent plot of land also available for development? Does the development fit within the overall vision of the developer?’ These are some questions which occupy the mind-space of the developer.

Is there one dominant parameter determining the transaction structure?

Sudhir Soni concurs: ‘The commercial considerations are largely dependent on the cash flow requirements of the developer and the landowner. Grant of development rights against sharing of revenue or developed area are the more prevalent JDA structures and there is not much difference in the business context. Grant of development rights against share of net profits is rare. The commercial considerations for a landowner to select between an area share or revenue share arrangement also depend on the cash flow requirements and taxation implications.’

There is a financial facet other than cash which is equally important – the timing of revenue recognition. Says Ameet Hariani, ‘So far as the developer’s requirements are concerned, since revenues can now only be recognised effectively upon the Occupation Certificate being obtained, and keeping the RERA perspective in mind, the speed of completion of the project is of paramount importance. This is especially true so far as listed developers are concerned.’

Practically, joint development arrangements have specific performance clauses for both the parties and will not allow a mid-way exit to either party. However, the future is uncertain. What if a developer runs out of cash mid-way and needs to exit and bring in another developer? Ameet Hariani opines, ‘Normally, a landowner would be uncomfortable to have a provision whereby development rights can be transferred / assigned without the landowner’s consent. It will be a very rare case where such right is allowed to the developer. There is a high likelihood of litigation where there is a transfer of rights proposed to a third party developer by the current developer’.

The litigation risk is not only at the developer’s end but also at the landowner’s end. Ameet Hariani continues, ‘Also, in the event the landowner wants the developer to exit and wants to appoint a new developer, once again there is a high likelihood of litigation.’ But Ameet Hariani has a golden piece of advice suggesting the incorporation of an arbitration clause in the agreement. ‘Earlier, there was a debate as to whether developer agreements could be made subject to arbitration or not. Recent judgments read with the amendments to the Specific Relief Act and the Arbitration Act have now clarified the position significantly and a well-drafted arbitration clause would be key to ensure protection for both the parties’, he says.

But new transaction structures are emerging

But wait! Weren’t transactions in immovable property expected to be outside the purview of GST? ‘Though there is a strong case to argue that such transactions should not be subjected to GST, there are conflicting interpretations on this front and the lower judicial forums are divided. One therefore has to wait for the Supreme Court to provide a final stand on this aspect,’ says Sunil Gabhawalla. Unluckily, businesses can’t wait and the stakes involved are phenomenal. The industry therefore tries to adapt and innovate newer transaction structures which are perhaps more tax-efficient.

Welcome the new concept of ‘Development Management Agreement’ wherein the developer acts as a project manager or a consultant to the landowner in developing the identified real estate. Suitable clauses are inserted to ensure that the developer and the landowner appropriate the profits of the venture in the manner desired. Essentially, this concept turns the entire relationship topsy-turvy and the key challenge is to ensure that the developer has a suitable title in the property while under development. ‘Safeguarding the developer’s rights and title in the property being developed becomes the most important aspect in this structure. Further, the brand value of the developer and past experience of other landowners with the developer is crucial for the landowner to make a choice as to which developer the landowner will go with,’ says Ameet Hariani.

It’s not really new for a tax aspect to be an important determinant for deciding a transaction structure. In case of corporate-owned properties put up for redevelopment, it is not uncommon to explore the route of demerger or slump sale and seek the associated benefits under the income-tax law. Pradip Kapasi says, ‘In case of demerger, the transfer of land by the demerged company to the resulting company would be tax-neutral provided the provisions of section 2(19AA) and sections 47(vib) and 47(vic) are complied with. No tax on transfer would be payable by the company or the shareholders. The cost of the land in the hands of the resulting company would be the same as was its cost in the hands of the demerged company’. Sunil Gabhawalla supports this approach, ‘GST is not payable on a transaction of transfer of business under a scheme of demerger’.

Well, the devil lies in the details. The provisions referred to above effectively require continuity of shareholding to the extent of at least 75%. This may not be possible in all cases. There comes up another option, of slump sale. Pradip Kapasi suggests, ‘The provisions of section 2(42C) r/w/s 2(19AA) and section 50B would apply on transfer of land as a part of the undertaking. No separate gains will be computed in respect of land. The company, however, would be taxed on the gains arising on transfer of the business undertaking in a slump sale. The amendments of 2021 in sections 2(42C) and 50B would have to be considered in computing the capital gains in the hands of the assignor company’. Effectively, income-tax becomes due on slump sale. What happens to GST? Sunil Gabhawalla opines, ‘There is an exemption from payment of GST.’

While such exotic products and arrangements may exist and appeal to many, there would always be takers for the plain vanilla example. The essential business case is that of the landowner and the developer coming together to jointly develop the property. A simple transaction structure could be to recognise the same as a joint venture, as an unincorporated association of persons. In fact, this is a risk parameter always at the back of the mind of any tax consultant. A less litigative route would be to grant such concept a legal recognition by entering into a partnership. To limit the liability of the stakeholders, the LLP / private limited company route can be considered. What could be the tax consequences of introduction of land into the entity?

Pradip Kapasi has this to say, ‘In such an event, of introduction in the partnership firm or LLP, provisions of section 45(3) of the Income-tax Act would be attracted and the landlord’s income under the head capital gains would be computed as per section 45(3) read with or without applying the provisions of section 50C. The profit / loss on subsequent development by the SPV would be computed under the head profits and gains of business and profession. In computing the income of the SPV, a deduction for the cost of land would be allowed on adoption of the value at which the account of the partner introducing the land is credited’. Would such introduction of land into the partnership have any GST implications? ‘Apparently, no, since such transactions are structured as in the nature of supply of land per se’, says Sunil Gabhawalla. He further comments, ‘If the transaction is structured as an introduction of a development right in the partnership firm, things can be different and reverse charge mechanism as explained earlier could be triggered’.

The next steps

Landowner’s perspective

Landowner as an investor
Essentially, in case the immovable property is held as an investor, it would be treated as a capital asset and the transfer of the capital asset or any rights therein would attract income-tax in the year of transfer itself under the head ‘capital gains’. While a concessional long-term capital gains tax rate and the benefits of reinvestment may be available, in order to curb the menace of tax evasion the Government prescribes that the value of consideration will be at least equivalent to the stamp duty valuation. This provision can become a spoilsport especially in situations where the ready reckoner values prescribed by the Government are not in alignment with the ground-level reality. However, Pradip Kapasi offers some consolation. While the said provisions would apply with full force to transactions of outright sale of land, the application of section 50C to grant of development rights transferred could be a matter of debate. But is the minor tax advantage (if at all) so derived really worth it? Remember the jigsaw puzzle of GST discussed above. But again, someone said that GST applies only on supplies
made in the course or furtherance of business. Did we not start this paragraph with the assumption that the landowner is an investor and is not undertaking a business venture?

Sunil Gabhawalla agrees with this thought process but at the same time cautions that the term ‘business’ is defined differently under the GST law and the income-tax law. He adds, ‘The valuation based on ready reckoner may be prescribed under income-tax law, but the same does not apply to GST where either the transaction value or equivalent market value become the key criteria’. Sudhir Soni endorses this thought from the accounting perspective as well, ‘The ready reckoner value will not necessarily be the fair value for accounting. The valuation for accounting purposes will be either based on the fair value of the entire land parcel received by the developer [or] based on the standalone selling price of constructed property given by the developer’.

In many cases, both the developer as well as the landowner wish to share the risks and rewards of the price fluctuations and also align cash flows. Accordingly, the consideration for the grant of development is both deferred as well as variable – either by way of share of gross revenue or share of profits, or sharing of area being developed. In cases where the landowner does not receive the money upfront and is keen on deferring the taxation to a future point of time, is it possible? The views of Pradip Kapasi are very clear, ‘Provision in agreement or deed for deferred payment or even possession may not help in deferring the year of taxation’. In the case of sharing of gross revenue, he further cautions that the fact of uncertainty of the quantum of ‘full value of consideration’ and its time of realisation may be impending factors but may not be conclusive for computation of capital gains, unless ‘arising’ of profits and gains on transfer itself is questioned. There could be debatable issues about the year of taxation of overflow or the underflow of consideration.

How does one really question or defer the timing of ‘arising’ of profits and gains on transfer? Without committing to the conclusiveness of the end position, which would be based on multiplicity of factors, Pradip Kapasi has a ray of hope to offer. In his words, ‘The cases where either the profit or developed area is shared could be differentiated on the ground that the landlord here has agreed to share the net profits of a business and therefore has actively joined hands to carry on a business activity for sharing of profits of such business. In such circumstances, his “share of profits” could arise as and when it accrues to the business’.

But tax law is full of caveats and provisos. Pradip Kapasi further warns, ‘There is a possibility that the landowner’s association with the developer here could be viewed as constituting an AOP and his action or treatment could activate the provisions of section 45(2) dealing with conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade and / or the provisions of section 45(3) for introduction of capital asset into an AOP. In case of application of section 45(2) and / or 45(3), there would arise capital gains in the hands of the landlord and would be subjected to tax as per the respective provisions. The surplus, if any, could be the business profits; however, where the transactions are viewed as constituting an AOP, he would be receiving a share in the net profits of the AOP and the share of profit received from the AOP would be computed as per provisions of sections 67B, 86 and 110 of the Income-tax Act’.

Phew, that’s a barrage of cryptic sections to talk about! Let’s keep our fingers crossed and assume that the landlord survives this allegation of the transaction being treated as an AOP. The battle is then nearly won. Pradip Kapasi continues, ‘Where no profits and gains are brought to tax in the year of grant of development rights under the head “capital gains”, the capital gains can be held to have arisen in the year of receipt of the ready flats, where the gains would be computed by reducing the COA (cost of acquisition) of land from the SDV (stamp duty value) of the flats received. Further, if the transaction is structured such that no capital gains tax is levied in the year of receipt of ready flats, the capital gains may be taxed in the year of sale of the flats allotted by the developer’. He further warns about some practical difficulties in this stand being taken; ‘where the landlord on receipt of flats does not sell them but lets them out, difficulties may arise for bringing to tax the notional gains in the hands of the landlord’.

In case all this mumbo-jumbo has dumbed your senses, a landlord who is an individual or HUF may consider the possibility of entering into a ‘specified agreement’ prescribed u/s 45(5A) that involves the payment of consideration in kind, with or without cash consideration in part, for grant of development rights. Under the circumstances, the capital gains on execution of the development agreement shall stand deferred to the year of issue of the completion certificate of the project or part thereof where the full value of consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains would be taken as the aggregate of the cash consideration and the stamp duty value of his share of area in the project in kind on the date of the issue of the completion certificate. This assumed concession is made available on compliance of the strict conditions including ensuring that the landlord does not transfer his share in the project prior to the date of issue of the completion certificate. Subsequent sale of the premises received under the agreement would be governed as per the provisions of section 45 r/w/s 48.

That’s too much of income-tax. Let’s divert our attention to GST. As a welcome change, Sunil Gabhawalla has a bit of advice for the landowners entering into joint development agreements after 1st April, 2019, ‘Sit back and relax. As stated earlier, the burden of paying the tax on supply of development rights has been transferred to the developer’. What happens when the landowner resells the developed area allotted to him under the area-sharing agreement? Sunil Gabhawalla adds, ‘If the developed area is sold after the receipt of the completion certificate, there is no tax. If the developed area is sold while the property is under construction, the landowner can argue that he is not constructing any area and therefore he is not liable for payment of GST. Remember, the GST on the area allotted to the landowner would also be paid by the developer’.

But life in GST cannot be so simple, right? Nestled in the by-lanes of a condition to a Rate Notification disentitling a developer from claiming input tax credit (ITC) for residential projects is an innocent-looking sentence which permits the landowner to claim ITC on units resold by him if he pays at least equivalent output tax on the units so resold. Sunil Gabhawalla says, ‘Well, the legal tenability of such a position can be questioned. But in tax laws, with the risk of litigation and retrospective amendments, the writing on the wall is that the boss is always right. If the landowner opts to fall in line, he would require a registration and would be paying additional GST on the difference between the tax charged to him and that which he charges to the end buyer. While this also brings commercial parity vis-à-vis the buyers for landowner’s inventory and the developer’s inventory, it could also result in some cash flow issue if not structured appropriately.’

In a nutshell, therefore, the key tax issue bothering the landowner in case of joint development agreements is not really GST but the upfront liability towards a substantial capital gains tax irrespective of actual cash realisation.

Landowner as a businessman
Will things change if the land is held as stock-in-trade? Actually, yes, and substantially. As a businessman, the landowner forfeits his entitlement of concessional long-term capital gains tax rate. But that pain comes with commensurate gain – the tax is attracted not when the transfer takes place but at a point of time when the income accrues in relation to such land. Says Pradip Kapasi, ‘The point of accrual of income is likely to arise on acquisition of an enforceable right to receive the income with reasonable certainty of realisation. The method of accounting and sections 145 and 28 may also play a vital role here. Provisions of ICDS and Guidance Note, where applicable, would apply’. Welcome to the wonderland of accounting and its impact on taxation!

Sudhir Soni says, ‘There may be alternatives. If it is treated as a capital gain, the amounts received as revenue share will be accumulated as advance and recognised at the end of the project, on giving possession. If it is treated as a business, at each reporting date apply percentage of completion to the extent of its share’. But is it really that simple? Well, the situation is fluid and the conflict is nicely summarised by Pradip Kapasi, ‘The fact that there was a “transfer” would not be a material factor in deciding the year of taxation. At the same time, the deferment of receipt may not be the sole factor for delaying the taxation where the enforceability of realisation is reasonably certain’.

Pradip Kapasi further cautions, ‘The provisions of section 43CA may play a spoilsport by introducing a deeming fiction for quantifying the revenue receipts.’ He has an additional word of advice. He suggests the preference of variable consideration models like gross revenue sharing, profit sharing or area sharing over the fixed consideration model. To quote him, ‘The case of the landlord here to defer the year of taxation could be better unless an income can be said to have accrued as per section 28 r/w/s 145, ICDS, where applicable, and Guidance Note of 2012’.

As usual, he has a few words of caution: firstly, ‘There is a possibility that the development rights held by the landlord are considered as a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) by treating such rights as a sub-specie of the land owned by him. In such case, a challenge may arise on the income-tax front where transfer of such
rights to the developer is subjected to taxation in the year of transfer itself. This possibility, however remote, could not be ignored though the better view is that even this sub-specie is a part of this stock-in–trade’; and secondly, ‘The possibility of treating the association with the developer as an AOP is not altogether ruled out especially in view of the amendment of 2002 for insertion of Explanation of section 2(31) dealing with the definition of “person” w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. In such an event, though remote, issues can arise in application of the provisions of section 45 to 55, particularly of sections 45(2), 45(3), 50C and 50D.’ Again, a plethora of sections to study and analyse. Well, that’s for the homework of the readers.

What happens on the GST front if the landowner is a businessman? Sunil Gabhawalla reiterates, ‘Sit back and relax if the development agreement is entered into after 1st April, 2019’. But what happens in cases where the development agreement is prior to that date? ‘I’m afraid, definitive answers are elusive. Whether transfer of development rights is liable for GST or not is itself a subject matter of debate. The issues of valuation and the timing of payment of tax are also not settled. We may need a separate article to deal with this,’ he adds.

Is Development Management Agreement a panacea for the landowner?
The concept of Development Management Agreement (DMA) has already been explained earlier. A quick sum and substance recap of the transaction structure would help us appreciate that the appointment of a development manager by the landowner vide a DMA would tantamount to the landowner donning the hat of a real estate developer and the development manager acting as a mere service provider. It will effectively mean that the landowner is the real estate developer who is developing a real estate project in his own land parcel. While this model offers significant respite in the GST outflow on development rights and also avoids the stretched interpretation of barter and consequent GST on free units allotted to existing members for self-consumption (remember, a redevelopment agreement entered into by a co-operative society is a sub-specie of a development agreement), it also helps the landowner in deferring the income-tax liability to a subsequent stage due to his becoming a businessman.

In the words of Pradip Kapasi, ‘In this case, the appointment of a Development Consultant under a DMA would itself be treated as a business decision in most of the cases. The appointment would signal the undertaking of an enterprise by the landlord on a systematic and continuous basis, constituting a business. Such an appointment would not be regarded as a “transfer” of capital asset and no capital gains tax would be payable on account of such an appointment. The first effect of such a decision would be to invite the application of section 45(2) providing for conversion or treatment of a capital asset into stock-in-trade and as a consequence lead to computation of capital gains that would be chargeable in the year of transfer of the stock-in-trade being developed. The market value of the land on such happening would be treated as the cost of the stock-in-trade and the rest would be governed by the computation of Profits and Gains of Business and Profession r/w/s 145, ICDS and Guidance Note’.

But is all hunky-dory as far as GST is concerned? Sunil Gabhawalla cautions, ‘While there is a respite in taxation for the landowner, it may be important to note that the developer relegates himself to the position of a contractor rather than a developer. This would disentitle him from claiming the concessional tax rate of 5% for developers and instead he would be liable for the general tax rate of 18% on the value of the services provided by him. However, this higher rate of tax comes with the eligibility towards claiming input tax credit.’

Developer’s perspective
Well, that was a lot of discussion from the point of view of the landowner. What happens at the developer’s end? Pradip Kapasi has a very simple and affirmative answer on this front. ‘The payment agreed to be made towards the development rights / land acquisition to the landowner would constitute a business expenditure that will be allowed to be deducted against the sale proceeds of the developed area, and if not sold by the yearend, would form the stock-in-trade and would be reflected in the books of accounts as its carrying cost’.

But what happens if the payment towards the development rights is deferred like in gross revenue sharing arrangements? ‘The net receipts subject to his method of accounting would be taxed in respective years of sale and / or realisation. The carrying cost of the stock would be represented by the amount of direct expenditure incurred by him excluding the notional cost of acquiring DR. In the alternative, the payment to be made to the landlord would constitute a business expenditure that will be allowed to be deducted against the gross sale proceeds, and if remaining to be sold by the yearend, would form part of the stock-in-trade and would be reflected in the books of accounts as its carrying cost’, says Pradip Kapasi.

In case of profit-sharing arrangements, however, he cautions about the risk of constitution of an AOP and the associated perils of sections 67B, 86 and 110. He is also afraid that the land cost may not be available as a deduction to the AOP. How does one deal with area-sharing agreements? Pradip Kapasi responds, ‘The net receipts of the balance area coming to the share of the developer would be taxed in respective years of sale and / or realisation where the cost of construction of all the flats would be allowed to be deducted as business expenditure. The carrying cost of the stock could be represented by the amount of direct expenditure incurred by him excluding the notional cost of acquiring DR. In the alternative, the payment to be made to the landlord in kind would constitute a business expenditure that will be allowed to be deducted against the gross sale proceeds, and if remaining unsold by the yearend, would form a part of the stock-in-trade and would be reflected in the books of accounts as its carrying cost.’

The clear essence of the above discussion is that the accounting treatment is important. But depending on certain criteria, enterprises are required to follow either IGAAP or Ind AS. Let us check out what Sudhir Soni has to say. ‘While there is very limited guidance available under IGAAP for accounting of joint development agreements, the cost that is incurred by the developer towards construction of the entire project is treated as cost towards earning the revenue from sale to the developer’s customers. Accordingly, in case of area share for landowner there is no separate accounting and in case of revenue share to landowner it is accounted through the balance sheet. Elaborate guidance is, however, available under Ind AS 115’.

He adds, ‘The JDA is a contract for specific performance and does not have a cancellation clause. For projects executed through joint development arrangements, it is evaluated that the arrangement with land owners are contracts with customers. The transaction is treated as if the developer is buying land from the landowner and selling the constructed area to the landowner. This results in a “grossing” of revenue and land cost, which is a difference from the accounting under Indian GAAP.’ Whether such a difference in accounting treatment will have any ramifications under the income-tax or GST law, only time will tell.

Having treated the transaction as a barter, there comes the issue of accounting for such a transaction. Sudhir Soni says, ‘For real estate projects executed through JDA not being jointly controlled operations, wherein the landowner provides land and the developer undertakes the development work on such land and agrees to transfer certain percentage of constructed area / revenue proceeds to the landowner, the revenue from the development and transfer of agreed share of constructed area / revenue proceeds in exchange of such development rights / land is accounted on gross basis. Revenue is recognised over time (JDA being specific performance arrangements) using input method, on the basis of the inputs to the satisfaction of a performance obligation relative to the total expected inputs to the satisfaction of that performance obligation. The gross accounting at fair value for asset in form of land inventory (subsequently recognised as land cost over time basis stage of project completion) and the corresponding liability to the landowner (subsequently recognised as revenue over time basis stage of project completion) may be accounted on signing of JDA, but in practice the accounting is done on the launch of the project, considering the time gap between the signing of the JDA and the actual launch of the project. The developer’s commitments under the JDA, which is executed and pending completion of its performance obligation, are disclosed in the financial statements.’

Further, ‘For real estate projects executed through a JDA being jointly controlled operations, which provide for joint control to the contracting parties for the relevant activities, the respective parties would be required to account for the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses relating to their interest in such jointly controlled JDA.’

Now comes the next accounting issue of measurement of fair value for such a barter. Sudhir Soni says, ‘The fair value for the gross accounting of JDA is the market value of land received by the developer or based on the standalone selling price of the share of constructed property given by the developer. In case the same cannot be obtained reliably, the fair value is then measured at the fair value of construction services provided by the developer to the landowner’. Well, but the valuation provisions under GST are different. Sunil Gabhawalla agrees and says that each domain will have to be independently respected.

The bottom line, it seems, is that the direct tax consequences for the developer will closely follow the generally accepted accounting principles for determination of net profit for a year. But are things equally simple in GST? Not really. Sunil Gabhawalla shares his inputs. ‘Unless the developer in essence constitutes a contractor, all new residential projects attract 5% GST on the sale proceeds of the units sold while under construction. Even area allotted to the landowner attracts this 5% GST on the equivalent market value of the units allotted to the landowner. Affordable housing projects enjoy a concessional tax rate of 1%. However, no input tax credit is available to the developer’.

But wait a minute! This is not all. A plethora of reverse charge mechanism Notifications require the developer to pay tax on the expenses incurred by him. For example, the proportionate value of the development rights acquired by him from the landowner is liable to GST in the hands of the developer at the time of receipt of the occupation certificate. As Sunil Gabhawalla adds, ‘It may make sense for the developer to procure goods and services from registered dealers only since another Notification requires the developer to pay GST on reverse charge if the procurement from unregistered dealers exceeds 20%. Notably, no tolerance limit has been provided for procurement of cement, where reverse charge mechanism triggers from the first rupee of procurement from unregistered dealers.’

Summing up
This article was an attempt to apprise the readers of the nuances of this complex topic. All experts agreed that the tax efficiencies of each structure over the other would be determined largely by the available circumstances and the needs of the parties. No structure, in such an understanding, is superior to other structures, nor inferior to any.