Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Smt. Delilah Raj Mansukhani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 2010-11
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Smt. Delilah Raj Mansukhani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

We find that compensation received by the assessee towards displacement in terms of Development Agreement is not a revenue receipt and constitute capital receipt as the property has gone into re­development. In such scenario , the compensation is normally paid by the builder on account of hardship faced by owner of the flat due to displacement of the occupants of the flat. The said payment is in the nature of hardship allowance / rehabilitation allowance and is not liable to tax.

FULL T

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

2 Comments

  1. pankaj says:

    Will the ruling apply in case the owners had rented out the flats OR were not staying in the premises ? Does the hardship reasoning still apply?

  2. Vishwanath Sambamoorthy says:

    very useful for members who have been harassed by ITO notice for non payment of tax on rent / hardship allowance received from builder on redevelopment.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
March 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31