9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 221 - AT - Income TaxCharacterization of income - Compensation received for foregoing the rights in the agreement to purchase property is taxable - revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT - Once the compensation is held to be is only on account of foregoing right to sue, which is a right in personam the same cannot be brought to tax. Furthermore, in the case of Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 1999 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT held that the amount received by the assessee for giving up its right to purchase or for getting it on lease is a capital receipt. Further, clause (ix) to sub s. (2) of s. 56 was inserted w.e.f assessment year 2015-16 providing to assets to tax the amount any sum of money received as an advance otherwise in the course of negotiation for transfer of capital asset if sum is forfeited and does not result in transfer of capital asset only w.e.f 01.04.2015. The amount received in giving up the right for specific performance was held to be capital receipt to the same effect in the decision of CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani 2005 (2) TMI 105 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT . In the light of above legal position, the amount of compensation received by the assessee cannot held to be a revenue receipt, but is a capital receipt and not liable to tax and it cannot be brought to tax under capital gain for the reason that it is not a capital asset. Thus, we reverse the orders of lower authorities and allow the appeal filed by the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Taxability of compensation received for relinquishing rights in an agreement. 3. Determination of the assessment year for taxability of compensation. 4. Classification of the compensation as capital gains or business income. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act: The appellant challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The appellant contended that the right to compensation had accrued as early as 01.07.2007, and thus, any taxability should be considered in the assessment year 2008-09, not 2009-10. The CIT(A) upheld the reassessment proceedings, leading to the appellant's appeal to the ITAT. 2. Taxability of compensation received for relinquishing rights in an agreement: The core issue was whether the compensation of ?3 crores received by the appellant for relinquishing rights in an agreement constituted taxable income. The appellant argued that the compensation was for foregoing a "right to sue," which is a right in personam and not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant relied on several judicial precedents, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT and the ITAT Ahmedabad's decision in Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which held that compensation for a right to sue is not taxable as capital gains. 3. Determination of the assessment year for taxability of compensation: The appellant argued that the compensation had accrued by virtue of agreements dated 20.04.2007 and mutual understanding reached on 01.07.2007, although formalized in writing on 18.09.2008. Therefore, the appellant contended that the compensation should be taxable in the assessment year 2008-09. The CIT(A) and AO, however, determined that the compensation accrued in the assessment year 2009-10 based on the memorandum of agreement dated 18.09.2008. 4. Classification of the compensation as capital gains or business income: The AO initially taxed the compensation under "Capital Gains-Short Term" but later reclassified it as "Business Income." The appellant challenged this reclassification, arguing that the compensation was a capital receipt for relinquishing rights in an agreement and not business income. The appellant filed a petition under Section 154, contesting the AO's finding that certain expenditures were involved in facilitating the land transfer, which was pending. Judgment: The ITAT Chennai, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, held that the compensation received was for relinquishing a right to sue, which is a right in personam and not a capital asset. The ITAT relied on several judicial precedents, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT and the Supreme Court's decision in Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that compensation for giving up a right to purchase or lease is a capital receipt and not taxable as capital gains. The ITAT concluded that the compensation received by the appellant could not be brought to tax under capital gains or as business income. The ITAT reversed the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, holding that the compensation was a capital receipt and not liable to tax. Order Pronouncement: The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on the 10th day of May, 2019, in Chennai.
|
