Certainty of receipt: an arbitral award crystallising entitlement fixes the year of taxation, with valuation and improvement costs treated accordingly.

The note addresses three revenue issues before ITAT: (i) taxability of a refundable security deposit-the Tribunal applied the principle that an arbitral award which conclusively fixes entitlement creates certainty of receipt, and directed taxation in the year the award crystallised (AY 2024-25); (ii) characterisation of interior works-on documentary evidence, payments through banking channels and enhancement of property value the Tribunal treated the expenditures as capital in nature and allowed them as cost of improvement for long term capital gains; (iii) valuation basis for capital gains-the Tribunal required fair market value to be computed on the area allotted per the occupancy certificate and sustained the assessee's market based valuation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refundable security deposit retained/awarded by arbitral tribunal is exigible to tax in the assessment year under challenge or in a later year when the arbitration award crystallised the entitlement; (ii) Whether amounts spent on interior works/improvements are capital in nature and deductible as cost of improvement for computation of long term capital gains; (iii) Whether the fair market value/sale consideration for capital gains should be computed on super built-up area as adopted by the AO or on the area allotted to the assessee as per the occupancy certificate.

Issue (i): Whether the refundable security deposit retained by the assessee pursuant to the arbitration award constitutes income in the assessment year under challenge or in the year in which the arbitral award crystallised the entitlement.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the arbitration award dated 01/07/2024 which fixed a compensation amount of Rs. 1,18,30,789 to be retained by the landowner from the refundable deposit and recorded that prior to the award there was no certainty regarding entitlement. The assessee undertook to include the award amount in income for Assessment Year 2024-25. The Tribunal treated the award as the event creating certainty of receipt and consequently set aside the assessment for the earlier year and remitted the matter to the AO to include the award amount in AY 2024-25.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; the taxable event crystallised on 01/07/2024 by the arbitration award and the amount is to be taxed in AY 2024-25.

Issue (ii): Whether the expenditure on interior works constitutes capital expenditure to be included as cost of improvement for computing long term capital gains.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the nature of payments, supporting bills, payments through banking channels, co-ownership facts and the effect of the works on property value. It found that the works enhanced the value of the property and were not mere routine repairs for tenancy; the Ld.CIT(A) had accepted documentary evidence and co-ownership aspects and treated the amounts as capital in nature.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; the expenditure is capital in nature and allowed as cost of improvement for capital gains computation.

Issue (iii): Whether fair market value/sale consideration should be computed on super built-up area (as used by the AO) or on the area allotted to the assessee as per the occupancy certificate (as claimed by the assessee).

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the occupancy certificate and developer correspondence relied upon by the assessee and noted the AO had no documentary basis to treat super built-up area as the assessee's allotted area; the assessee used market data of a comparable second-floor sale and applied the occupancy-certificate area, also applying a 5% tolerable variation. The Ld.CIT(A)'s acceptance of the occupancy-certificate-based area and the market value evidence was supported.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; fair market value and sale consideration must be computed based on the area allotted as per the occupancy certificate and the value adopted by the assessee is sustained.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upholds the assessee on the substantive issues decided: the disputed security deposit is taxable only in the year in which the arbitration award crystallised the entitlement (AY 2024-25), the improvement costs qualify as capital expenditure for computation of capital gains, and the fair market value must be computed on the area per the occupancy certificate; accordingly the assessee's appeal is allowed (for statistical purposes) in respect of these issues while the revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award that conclusively determines entitlement to funds creates the necessary certainty of receipt for taxation in the year of the award; expenditures that enhance property value and are supported by documentary evidence and payment records are capital in nature and form part of cost of improvement; fair market value for capital gains should be based on the area actually allotted as per occupancy certificate where the assessing authority lacks documentary basis to include additional super built-up area.

---