SUBHASH SURYAKANT PHADKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3490/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 January 2026AY 2011-12Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the compensation received for vacating the flat and hardship allowance is in the nature of a capital receipt and not taxable as income from other sources, relying on High Court and coordinate bench decisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 53,50,500 from a builder for redevelopment of a flat, which was treated as income from other sources by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee contended it was a capital receipt for vacating the flat and hardship allowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the compensation received by the assessee from the builder for vacating the flat and for hardship allowance is a capital receipt or taxable income from other sources.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 56(2)(vii)(a),Section 10(34),Section 54,Section 54EC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, AR, Shri Sandeep Darji, AR, Shri Shardul Shah, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha P. Kaushik, Sr. DR
Hearing: 31.10.2025Pronounced: 22.01.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the impugned order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s.250

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘AY’

for short) 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in a summary manner without passing a speaking and a reasoned order. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to apprec

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →