RAJESH RAMESH RANGANEKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2157/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 July 2024AY 2011-12Bench: MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, held that the hardship allowance received by the assessee in the context of a redevelopment agreement is a capital receipt and not taxable as income. The receipt is compensatory for difficulties faced by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 53,50,500 from a developer as hardship allowance during a redevelopment agreement. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as income from an unexplained source, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee contended that the amount received was a capital receipt and not taxable.

What were the issues?

Whether the hardship allowance received by the assessee from the developer during a redevelopment is a taxable revenue receipt or a non-taxable capital receipt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 2(24)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Biyani, CA, Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.07.2024

Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 20.03.2024 for AY 2011-12. The only issue contended in this appeal is the CIT(A) confirming addition of INR 53,50,500/- received from developer Kalpataru towards hardship allowance.

2.

The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2011-12 on 28.07.2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,62,531/-. The AO received information that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 53,50,500/- from M/s Kalpataru Properties Ltd. with whom the assessee has entered into a redevelopment agreement. Therefore, the AO issued a n

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →