Court dismisses appeals on TDR sale accounting & taxability, citing settled law. Assessments for 2000-2003 not sustainable.

The High Court dismissed three appeals concerning the interpretation of the accounting method for the sale of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and compensation amount, as well as the taxability of profit from the sale of TDR and cash compensation. The Court held that the issues raised had already been settled in a previous decision and therefore the additions made in the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 were not sustainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of accounting method for sale of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and compensation amount received by the assessee, taxability of profit from sale of TDR and cash compensation.

Interpretation of accounting method for sale of TDR and compensation amount:
The Revenue questioned the method of accounting, specifically the Project completion method, followed by the assessee for the sale of TDR and compensation amount. The Tribunal upheld this method. The key issue was whether this method was justified under the circumstances and in accordance with the law. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue.

Taxability of profit from sale of TDR and cash compensation:
Another issue raised was whether the profit from the sale of TDR and cash compensation should be chargeable to tax in the assessment year 2003-2004 on a substantive basis or in the years under consideration on an approval basis. The Tribunal held that the profit should be taxed in the AY 2003-2004 on a substantive basis. This decision was also contested.

The High Court noted that the respondent had already been assessed for the AY 2003-2004. Referring to a previous decision of the Court in a similar matter, it was concluded that the issues raised in the appeals were already settled. Therefore, the additions made in the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 were not sustainable. As a result, the proposed questions of law were not entertained, and all three appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

---