TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Chopra with Ms. Vriti Anand ORDER The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 2892/Del/2011. The facts in brief are that the assessee had claimed that Rs. 15,43,000/- received by her, as compensation for late handing over of the possession of a property was a capital receipt and, therefore, not taxable. The property in qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s property was handed over to the assessee. He simply observed that it is difficult to understand how the assessee can claim that DLF Commercial Developer has not given the possession of the said property, whereas the same is appearing in the wealth-tax return of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised a specific plea before the Assessing Officer that she has wrongly show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue with one more angle also. If the property was completed and possession was handed over to the assessee as construed by the Assessing Officer then any income received by the assessee from this property would be an house property income and not an income from other sources. In that situation, Assessing Officer should have verified that who is the tenant over the property but no such steps wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 (28) (A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or not. The ITAT held that though the nomenclature is interest but it is not the interest as such, it is a compensation paid by the DDA on account of delay in the construction of the developed units and the term 'interest' used only as a measuring of quantification. ITAT held such payment by DDA as capital receipt in the hands of allottee. Similar is ....