COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
CORAM: | Shailendra Yadav (JM) |
SECTION(S): | 4, 48 |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | capital vs. revenue receipt, compensation, redevelopment of property |
COUNSEL: | Subhash Chhajed |
DATE: | August 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | September 5, 2016 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2007-08 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
Compensation received by flat owner from builder for hardship caused due to redevelopment of the building is a non-taxable receipt and has to be reduced from the cost of the flat. Amount received from builder to meet rental costs during the redevelopment is also not taxable as income |
It is elementary that the connotation of income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes “any capital gains chargeable under section 45”, and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot be taken 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 income by way of a specific provision in the Act
Recent Comments