| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
December 18, 2009 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Consideration for permission to use TDR / FSI not chargeable to tax
The assessee co-op housing society gave permission to a developer to construct 2 floors and 8 flats on the building belonging to the society by using the TDR / FSI available to the developer. In consideration, the developer paid Rs. 26 lakhs to the assessee and Rs. 66 lakhs to its members aggregating Rs. 92 lakhs. The AO took the view that the assessee had relinquished its right “to load TDR and construct additional floors” and as there was no cost of acquisition, the entire consideration of Rs. 26 L was assessable as long-term capital gains. On appeal, the CIT (A) took the view that even the amounts received by the Members were assessable in the assessee’s hands. He accordingly enhanced the assessment and directed that the consideration be taken at Rs. 92 L. On appeal by the assessee, HELD reversing the CIT (A):
The assessee – society and its members had no right to construct additional floors on the existing building as they had exhausted the right available while constructing the flats in the building. The TDR was not obtained by the assessee and sold to the developer. Accordingly, the assessee had not transferred any existing right to the developer nor any cost was incurred / suffered prior to permitting the developer to construct the additional floors. In the absence of a cost of acquisition, the judgement in B. C. Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 (SC) applied and the consideration was not assessable as capital gains.
Related Posts:
- Little Angels Education Society vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the CBDT vide Circular No.2 / 2020 or by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 19.02.2020. Fixing a period of one year’s delay i.e., 365 days of delay for condonation of delay in filing Form…
- Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 92A(2) governs the operation of Section 92A(1) by controlling the definition of participation in management or capital or control by one of the enterprise in the other enterprise. If a form of participation in management, capital or control is not recognized by Section 92A(2), even if it ends up…
- Unnikrishnan V S vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that so far as the ESOP benefit is concerned, while the income has arisen to the assessee in the current year, admittedly the related rights were granted to the assessee in 2007 and in consideration for the services which were rendered by the assessee prior to the rights…
- Karmic Labs Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But, the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares. In our opinion, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular…
- Volkswagen Finance Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) business models are constantly evolving, and as the rapid communication modes such as internet and social media have completely transformed the way businesses communicate, it is time that the law is seen in tandem with the ground realities of the business world, rather than in the strict confines of what…
- DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
Recent Comments