MRS SHIREEN J. DASTUR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAXATION WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2204/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 November 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)14 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amount received was not taxable as capital gains because there was no transfer of a capital asset. The assessee's right to the property was undecided, and the payment was for clearing title and avoiding litigation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, received Rs. 15 Crores for withdrawing a civil suit filed to claim her inheritance rights in an immovable property. The Assessing Officer treated this as capital gains, but the assessee argued it was a capital receipt from settling a right to sue.

What were the issues?

Whether the amount received for withdrawal of a civil suit claiming inheritance rights in property constitutes capital gains, and if not, whether it could be taxed as income from other sources.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(47),Section 2(14),Section 56(2)(x),Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 11.08.2025Pronounced: 04.11.2025

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the assessment order passed under the directions Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5)/2022-23/1043696726(1), dated 30.06.2022, u/s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 Shireen J Dastur AY 2018-19

2.

Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO and DRP has failed to appreciate that amount received from Sanjay Infraspace Private Limited is not in the nature of income. 2.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(47)

All 851 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →