TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sation is referable to the same. Further, Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (1971 (8) TMI 15 - SUPREME Court) has held that in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer. Therefore, receipt of ₹ 11,75,000 by the assessee cannot be said to be of revenue nature. However it is agreed that the same will be taken as part of cost of acquisition of new flat – Decided in favor of assessee. - I.T.A No.2349/ Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2012 - Shri B.R.Mittal, Pramod Kumar, JJ. Gajendra Golchha, for the appellant P.K.B.Menon, for the respondent O R D E R Per Pramod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of what he now terms as, cash compensation . It is taxability of this amount of Rs.11,75,000 which is in dispute before us, and it is, therefore, necessary to understand the back ground in which this amount was received. The assessee was member of a housing society by the name of Vile Parle Ramesh CHS Ltd. This housing society, alongwith it s members, entered into an agreement with a developer, and, under the said agreement, the developer was to demolish the residential building owned by the housing society, and reconstruct a new multistoried building by using the FSI arising out of the property, and by utilizing outside TDR under Development control Regulations. Under this arrangement, the assessee, as a member of the housing society, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as income. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmraje R. Kardambande vs CIT (195 ITR 877) has observed that ..,, we hold that the amounts received by the assessee during the financial years in question have to be regarded as capital receipts, and, therefore, (emphasis supplied by us), are not income within meaning of section 2(24) of the Income tax Act . This clearly implies, as is the settled legal position in our understanding, that a capital receipt in principle is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and a receipt cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of revenue receipt or is brought within the ambit of income by way of a specific provision in the Act. No matter how wide be the scope of income u/s.2(24) it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermining the nature of receipt in the hands of the assessee. In view of these discussion, in our considered view, the receipt of Rs.11,75,000 by the assessee cannot be said to be of revenue nature, and, accordingly, the same is outside the ambit of income under section 2(24) of the Act. However, in our considered opinion and as learned counsel for the assessee fairly agrees, the impugned receipt ends up reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset, i.e. flat, and, therefore, the same will be taken into account as such, as and when occasion arises for computing capital gains in respect of the said asset. Subject to these observations, grievance of the assessee is upheld. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
