How this calculation works
Start the deposit benchmark with the same cash used for land price and upfront costs. Move each positive or negative land-only interim flow to the final year using the entered benchmark compounding assumption. Add net sale proceeds and compare at that one horizon. The resulting difference includes the timing and opportunity cost of holding expenses, rather than comparing gross appreciation with deposit interest alone.
Land terminal equivalent = net sale + Σ year-end net land flow × benchmark growth^(remaining years); compare with (price + upfront costs) × benchmark growth^yearsA worked example
Price ₹10,00,000 plus upfront costs ₹1,00,000 gives equal initial cash ₹11,00,000. At entered 5% annual compounding for three years, the benchmark is ₹12,73,387.50. Annual income ₹20,000 less costs ₹10,000 contributes ₹31,525 at the horizon. A ₹14,00,000 sale less entered 2% and ₹5,000 costs gives ₹13,67,000 net; the land terminal equivalent is ₹13,98,525, a difference of +₹1,25,137.50.
Good to know
Before-tax entered-cash-flow comparison with whole-year timing and fixed benchmark assumptions. No investment recommendation, land valuation, risk/liquidity equivalence, borrowing, tax calculation, FD product terms, early exit, renewal-rate changes or inflation model. A negative interim flow is an opportunity-cost debit, not borrowing at the FD rate. A zero minimum sale can mean modeled interim flows already meet the benchmark, not exact equality at zero.
Check the land-unit definitions and sources
The standard factors use the international foot and an acre of 43,560 sq ft. Cent means 1/100 acre; gunta means 1/40 acre; the selected Chennai ground means 2,400 sq ft.
The Assam report defines bigha as 14,400 sq ft, katha as 2,880 sq ft and lecha as 144 sq ft. The cited West Bengal court order mentions a 720-sq-ft katha convention. These are explicit presets, not an automatic definition for every record or every place using the same name. Match your record to the stated convention, or use its verified custom factor.
- NIST: exact international-foot and acre factors (opens in a new tab) ↗
- API Setu MDDS: acre/cent and acre/gunta relationships (opens in a new tab) ↗
- Greater Chennai Corporation: one ground is 2,400 sq ft (opens in a new tab) ↗
- Government of Assam AIRBMP framework: section 7.2, page 28 (bigha, katha and lecha) (opens in a new tab) ↗
- Supreme Court order, 7 May 2025: paragraph 2, page 2 (West Bengal katha) (opens in a new tab) ↗
The acre relationships are converted using exact base factors. Rounded or unrelated regional values in a reference table are not substituted for these definitions.
Compare the same initial cash and the same end date
A plot costing ₹10,00,000 plus ₹1,00,000 of acquisition expenses uses ₹11,00,000 upfront. Comparing its eventual sale with interest on a ₹10,00,000 deposit would give the land side an extra ₹1,00,000 without charging for it. This page starts the deposit benchmark with the full entered price plus upfront costs.
The fixed deposit calculator answers the individual cumulative-deposit question. This comparison adds land-specific holding costs, income, one-off cash flows and selling expenses, then moves the outcomes to a common horizon. Its benchmark is a fixed-return mathematical scenario; it does not select an actual bank product.
A gross sale value alone is not net proceeds. With an entered ₹14,00,000 sale, 2% selling expense and ₹5,000 fixed exit cost, the model receives ₹13,67,000. The two expense inputs are amounts and percentages supplied by you; no duty, registration charge or capital-gains tax rule is inferred.
The fixed deposit calculator models one cumulative deposit. Land versus fixed deposit adds equal upfront cash, timed land-only flows and net sale expenses, with every outcome compared at one horizon.
An expense in year one has a different opportunity cost from an expense in year three
In the three-year example, annual income of ₹20,000 less a ₹10,000 holding expense leaves ₹10,000 at each year end. At the entered 5% annual benchmark, the first amount becomes ₹11,025 at the horizon, the second becomes ₹10,500, and the final amount stays ₹10,000. Their terminal equivalent is ₹31,525, rather than the uncompounded sum of ₹30,000.
Negative flows follow the same timing rule. An additional ₹50,000 paid at the end of year one reduces the three-year terminal equivalent by ₹55,125 at 5%; the same amount paid in year three reduces it by ₹50,000. This represents the benchmark wealth forgone by committing that cash to land.
That negative-flow treatment does not mean a real FD lends money at its deposit rate or accepts arbitrary top-ups and withdrawals. The calculation is an opportunity-cost comparison, not a simulated financing account. Positive interim flows are likewise assumed reinvested at the benchmark; if you intend to consume them instead, the model no longer describes that use.
Annual income and holding expenses are first-year amounts. Their separate escalation rates apply from year two. The optional extra-flow rows add one-off receipts or payments at whole year ends, with positive for receipts and negative for payments. Keep purchase costs and final sale out of those rows because they already have dedicated inputs.
Read the difference and break-even sale as conditional results
With equal upfront cash of ₹11,00,000, three years at entered 5% annual compounding gives a deposit benchmark of ₹12,73,387.50. Adding the example’s ₹31,525 interim equivalent to ₹13,67,000 net sale gives a land terminal equivalent of ₹13,98,525. Land minus deposit is therefore +₹1,25,137.50 under these assumptions. A negative result means the opposite arithmetic difference.
The minimum gross sale output solves for the sale value that makes the terminal land side meet the benchmark after the entered selling expenses. It is a required value in the model, not a forecast that a buyer will pay it. If interim flows already meet the benchmark even with zero gross sale, the minimum nonnegative sale is shown as zero rather than an impossible negative sale target.
CAGR can summarize the change between a purchase price and an assumed sale value, but it leaves out intervening payments and acquisition or selling costs unless they are modeled separately. Land price per unit can first normalize unlike price quotations; it does not verify a market valuation. The inflation calculator answers another question about purchasing power and is not silently applied to this before-tax nominal comparison.
Keep the benchmark assumption separate from deposit terms
Choose the stated nominal rate and compounding frequency deliberately. Monthly compounding at one nominal annual rate is not the same as annual compounding at that rate. The effective annual rate calculator can make that distinction visible. Here the chosen assumption stays constant throughout every year, even if an actual deposit would mature or renew earlier.
Deposit offers have their own payout, renewal and premature-withdrawal terms. Those conditions can change the realized cash flows and are outside this mathematical benchmark. No particular provider’s rate, penalty or tax treatment is copied into the calculator. Risk, liquidity, inflation, financing and personal circumstances are also outside the output, so a larger modeled number is not a recommendation.
A few questions, answered
Why does the deposit start with purchase costs included?
They consume upfront cash in the land scenario. Investing the same total upfront amount keeps the initial-capital comparison consistent.
Can extra expenses and receipts occur in the same year?
Yes. Rows with the same whole-year number are summed, then added to that year’s income minus holding cost. Avoid repeating anything already entered in the other fields.
Are annual flows paid at the beginning of the year?
No. All annual and additional flows occur at year end. First-year income and holding costs are not escalated; their growth rates begin in year two.
Is the break-even sale price a market estimate?
No. It is the sale value needed to meet the chosen fixed-return benchmark given the entered cash flows and expenses. The tool does not fetch land prices or estimate what buyers will pay.
Can I use this for a land loan or an interest-payout FD?
Not as a complete model. It assumes an unfinanced upfront purchase and a cumulative fixed-return benchmark. Loan repayments, financing rates and actual payout/reinvestment terms require their own cash-flow model.
Is the comparison after tax?
No. No tax liability or tax rate is calculated. Taxes can materially change real outcomes, and entering a cost amount does not turn this into a tax computation.