2025 (4) TMI 538 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) - value of new flat allotted as compensation received by the assessee in the form of a flat for vacating a property occupied illegally - disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 54F - whether compensation received by the assessee from the builder for clearing the nuisance shall constitute capital asset in the hands of the assessee? - HELD THAT - The assessee has created nuisance to the developer/builder and the said flat was allotted to the assessee as compensation for removing nuisance created by the assessee. We notice that an identical issue has been considered in the case of Shri Kishre D.P. 2017 (2) TMI 1567 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein it was held that the compensation received for creating a nuisance is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee and the same is not taxable - Decided in favour of assessee.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

1. Whether the compensation received by the assessee in the form of a flat valued at Rs. 2.59 crores, for vacating a property occupied illegally, is taxable under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the compensation received in the form of a new flat.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Taxability of Compensation Received

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The primary legal provision under consideration is Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with the taxation of income from other sources, specifically addressing the receipt of property without consideration or for inadequate consideration. The case also references precedents such as the decision in Shri Kishre D.P. vs. Income Tax Officer, which held that compensation received for creating a nuisance is a capital receipt and not taxable.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the compensation received by the assessee, in the form of a flat, constituted a capital receipt or income taxable under Section 56. The Tribunal referred to the precedent set in Shri Kishre D.P. vs. Income Tax Officer, where it was determined that compensation for nuisance is a capital receipt, thus not taxable as income.

Key evidence and findings: The key evidence included the fact that the assessee was not listed as a certified tenant by government authorities, indicating illegal occupation. The compensation was received as a result of a court settlement for vacating the property, which the Tribunal interpreted as compensation for removing a nuisance.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles from the precedent case, determining that the compensation received by the assessee was a capital receipt. As such, it was not taxable under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the compensation should be taxed as income from other sources. However, the Tribunal favored the assessee's argument, supported by precedent, that the compensation was a capital receipt and not taxable.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the compensation received by the assessee, in the form of a flat, was a capital receipt for removing a nuisance and, therefore, not taxable under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).

2. Deduction under Section 54F

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 54F of the Income Tax Act provides for a deduction in respect of capital gains arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, subject to certain conditions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not need to delve deeply into the issue of deduction under Section 54F, as it concluded that the compensation was a capital receipt and not taxable. Thus, the question of claiming a deduction under Section 54F became moot.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not claimed the deduction in the return of income and that the compensation was not taxable as income.

Application of law to facts: Given the Tribunal's conclusion that the compensation was a capital receipt, the issue of deduction under Section 54F did not require further consideration.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal's decision on the non-taxability of the compensation precluded the need to address the competing arguments regarding the deduction under Section 54F.

Conclusions: The Tribunal did not make a determination on the deduction under Section 54F, as it was unnecessary given the conclusion on the non-taxability of the compensation.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that the value of the flat received by the assessee as compensation for removing a nuisance constituted a capital receipt and was not taxable. This decision was based on the precedent that compensation for nuisance is a capital receipt and not income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the cost of the new flat amounting to Rs. 2.59 crores from the assessee's taxable income.

The Tribunal's decision reinforces the principle that compensation received for nuisance is a capital receipt and not taxable as income. The final determination on the primary issue resulted in the appeal being allowed in favor of the assessee.

← Previous Next →