Housing society member's hardship compensation from redevelopment agreement ruled non-taxable capital receipt, not dividend income

ITAT Mumbai held that hardship compensation received by housing society member under re-development agreement constitutes capital receipt, not taxable revenue. AO/CIT(A) erroneously treated compensation from builder as dividend income, arguing it violated mutuality principle since payment came from third party developer. Tribunal followed coordinate bench precedent in Kushal K. Bangia, ruling compensation reduces flat's acquisition cost and becomes relevant only for future capital gains computation. Assessee's appeal allowed, establishing hardship compensation as non-taxable capital receipt.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against addition of Hardship Compensation Fund as "Dividend Income" by Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2011-12.

Summary:
The appellant, an individual (Retired Person), appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision confirming the addition of Rs. 25,21,508/- as "Dividend Income" from the residential society. The appellant received this amount from a developer/builder as "Hardship Compensation" due to a re-development agreement. The AO treated this amount as revenue in nature and added it under "income from other sources". The appellant contended that the compensation was a capital receipt and not taxable. The ITAT, after considering the arguments, held in favor of the appellant.

Assessee's Argument:
The appellant received the Hardship Compensation as part of a re-development agreement, which was a capital receipt and not taxable as income. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision stating that capital receipts are not taxable unless specified under the Income Tax Act. The compensation was for displacement due to re-development and constituted a capital receipt.

ITAT's Decision:
The ITAT agreed with the appellant, stating that the Hardship Compensation was a capital receipt and not revenue in nature. The ITAT referred to a previous Tribunal decision and held that the compensation reduced the cost of acquisition of the asset. Therefore, the amount was not considered income under section 2(24) of the Act. The ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the compensation was a capital receipt and not subject to tax.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant and stating that the Hardship Compensation received was a capital receipt and not taxable as income. The decision was based on the nature of the compensation as part of a re-development agreement, reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset.

---