The Asessessee  has purchased a land at Khar Mumbai , vide Deed of Conveyance dated August 28, 1956. He constructed a bungalow consisting of ground floor and first floor. Vide agreement dated September 29, 1992 the assessee executed an agreement for redevelopment with Gokul Construction Co . As per the agreement the assessee received an amount of Rs. 1.55 Crores in FY. 1993-94 and offered the same as long term capital gains  for tax in AY .1994-95.  By exchange of Letter dated September 29, 1992 the Developers has agreed to   pay  additional amount to the assessee Rs. 1,000 per square foot of TDRs that would be utilized . In the year 2016 & 2017 the Developer has paid 1,00,92,750 for loading TDR in the building . The assessee  has offered the said amount as long term capital gains . The Assessing Officer assessed the said receipt as income from other sources . The order of the Assessing Officer  was  affirmed by the CIT(A) and Tribunal . On appeal to the High Court ,allowing the appeal  the Honourable  Court held that development agreement and the commitment letter should be read as one agreement and should be considered as payment under the development agreement itself .The stand of the assessee offering the said  receipt as long term capital gains is affirmed .  The petitioner has also raised additional substantial  question law  before the Honourable High Court  relying on the judgement of   CIT v. Sambhaji Nagar Co -operative Society Ltd (2015) 370 ITR 325 ( Bom)(HC) and  CIT v. Maheswari Prakash -2 Co -Operative Housing Society Ltd (ITA No 2346 of 2009 dt. 24 -4 -2015 )( Order of Tribunal  Maheswari Prakash -2 Co -Operative Housing Society Ltd v. ITO (2009) 118 ITD 223 (Mum)( Trib),     which reads as under “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case , as the assessee had not incurred any cost to acquire the additional  FSI ,the amount of Rs , 1,00, 17,750 / received from the developer is not taxable ?”.

Revenue  contended that the issue raised in the additional  substantial question of law was not argued before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal hence  the Court should not frame the substantial question of law proposed . Honourable High Court has admitted the substantial question of law . At the time of hearing the petitioner has not pressed the question no 2 which was originally framed  and question no 3 which was later framed . ( ITA No . 259 of 2003 dt 23 -2. 2024 , ITA No. 259 of 2003 dt 19-4-  2024 )(AY. 1997 -98 )