TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awrence Rebello [ 2021 (10) TMI 63 - ITAT INDORE ] held that the benefit received by the assessee in the form of bigger size of flat and amount received as hardship allowance from the developer is a capital receipt, which cannot be treated as revenue receipt for taxing as income - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA no.3206/Mum./2022 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2023 - Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri M. Subramanian For the Revenue : Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 21/10/2022 passed under section 250 of the income tax Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pment agreement with M/s DB MIG Realtors and Builders Private Limited. The assessee filed a letter requesting to treat the return already filed as a return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.25,21,508, received from M/s DB MIG Realtors and Builders Private Limited be not treated as income from other sources within the meaning of section 56 of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 18/12/2018, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act denied the claim of the assessee that the above receipts as capital receipts and held that the activity carried out by the housing society is in the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said agreement, all the expenses, costs, and charges for the proposed project of redevelopment of the said property including for the purchase of additional FSI from MHADA, etc. shall be borne by the developers alone and the society and/or members shall not be liable to pay or contribute any amount toward the same. The developer, as per the agreement has paid to the society being the lawful owner of the property and the members an aggregate monetary consideration. The said monetary consideration was distributed among the members of the society being shareholders, depending upon the size of their old flat. During the year under consideration, the assessee has received an amount of Rs.25,21,508, being the consideration for the surrender of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefits received by the assessee from a bigger size of flat and impugned amount has been given in pursuance to agreement between the society and the developer and it was hardship compensation, ITA No.132/Ind/2020 rehabilitation compensation kind of benefit. The orders passed by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of Smt. Delilah Raj Mansukhani (supra), Jitendra Kumar Soneja (supra) and Kushal K Bangia(supra) including the order passed by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Devshi Lakhamshi Dedhia (supra), it is amply clear that where the assessee being a flat owner in a housing society receives certain sum from developer as corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. hardship allowance is involved, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order is set aside and ordered to be deleted. As a result, ground No.1, raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 8. As the issue on merits was covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, therefore the learned Authorised Representative wishes not to press the application seeking admission of additional ground of appeal challenging the invocation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the said application is dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
