Compensation for waiving property sale right is taxable as capital gains per High Court ruling.

The High Court held that compensation received for giving up the right to specific performance of a property sale agreement constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, attracting capital gains tax. The Court overturned the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the right to specific performance is a capital asset, and its relinquishment is taxable. The Revenue's appeals were allowed, the Tribunal's orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for computing capital gains in compliance with the law and the Court's directives, including deductions under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. Each party was to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount received for giving up the right to specific performance of an agreement to sell can be treated as a transfer and brought to capital gains tax.
2. Whether, when there are two possible views, the one favorable to the assessee should be adopted.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Capital Gains Tax on Compensation for Giving Up Right to Specific Performance
The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's order, which held that the amount received by the assessees was a capital receipt and not a capital gain, and thus not taxable under capital gains. The assessees had entered into an agreement to purchase a residential property and paid an advance. When the vendor sold the property to another party, the assessees filed a suit for specific performance. A settlement was reached outside the court, where the assessees received compensation for withdrawing the suit.

The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the compensation received was for giving up their right in the property, thus attracting capital gains tax. This decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. However, the Tribunal reversed this, stating that the right to sue for damages is not a capital asset under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, as it is not transferable under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act.

Upon appeal, the High Court analyzed various judgments and statutory definitions:
- Section 2(14) of the IT Act defines 'capital asset' as property of any kind, excluding certain items.
- Section 2(47) defines 'transfer' to include sale, exchange, relinquishment, or extinguishment of rights in a capital asset.

The Court referred to judgments from various High Courts, including:
- CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd.: Held that a right to obtain a conveyance of immovable property is a capital asset.
- CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers: Held that giving up the right to specific performance in lieu of damages is a transfer of a capital asset.
- CIT vs. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla: Distinguished that a right to sue for damages is not a capital asset.

The High Court concluded that the right to specific performance is a capital asset. Giving up this right in exchange for compensation constitutes a transfer, attracting capital gains tax. The compensation received by the assessees for relinquishing their right to specific performance should be considered capital gains, subject to deductions under Section 48 of the IT Act.

Issue 2: Adoption of Favorable View to Assessee
The Tribunal had held that when two views are possible, the one favorable to the assessee should be adopted. The High Court, however, emphasized that the statutory definitions and judicial precedents clearly indicate that the right to specific performance is a capital asset and its relinquishment is a transfer. Therefore, the favorable view principle does not apply when the law is clear.

Judgment:
1. The appeals by the Revenue were allowed.
2. The Tribunal's orders were set aside.
3. The matter was remitted back to the AO to compute the capital gains in accordance with the law and the Court's observations, particularly considering Section 48 for deductions.
4. Each party was to bear its own costs.

---