TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eless Appeal Centre, Delhi, ["learned CIT(A)"], for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: - "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the valuation of 111,38,67,000/-adopted for stamp duty purposes under the development agreement dated 08.09.2015 is merely notional and does not give rise to any income in the hands of the assessee, without appreciating the real nature of consideration received in kind. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that no consideration accrued or arose to the assessee during the relevant pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of the Revenue is against the deletion of addition in the hands of the assessee-society made on account of the redevelopment agreement. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and was formed only for the benefit of maintenance of the apartment consisting of 35 flats belonging to 35 members. For the year under consideration, the assessee did not file its return of income. On the basis of the information received through the Insight portal under the head "RMS - Non-filer of Return" that the assessee has sold immovable property of Rs. 30 Lakh or more an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead with section 144B of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee did not submit any confirmation either from the developer or the subdeveloper in support of its contention that the agreement was not acted upon. Accordingly, the AO treated the value of the agreement, i.e. Rs. 11,38,67,000/- as income of the assessee-society under the head "Income from Other Sources." 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the addition made by the AO by treating the same as merely a notional valuation adopted for stamp duty purposes, which does not represent any real or enforceable income in the hands of the assessee society. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ety for the payment of rent to 35 members during the period of redevelopment of the building. For the purpose of payment of stamp duty and registration of agreement, a valuation of Rs. 11,38,67,000/- was adopted. 9. It is a consistent plea of the assessee that after registration of the redevelopment agreement, the same was not acted upon by the Developer and Sub-Developer due to a lack of permit by the Municipal Corporation and concerned authorities. Thus, the building was never handed over to the Developer and Sub-Developer for demolition and reconstruction as agreed in the redevelopment agreement dated 08.09.2015. From the record, we also find that the assessee also furnished its bank statement in support of the contention that no paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d no payment was received by the assessee-society. This further substantiates the fact that the redevelopment never materialised, and the members/flat owners continue to occupy their flats, and possession was never handed over to the developer. Thus, the building was not demolished, and no new construction or alternative development was ever provided. 12. In any case, the fact remains that the assessee is merely a Cooperative Housing Society and was not the owner of any of the flats in the building. We find that in a similar factual matrix, while deciding the issue of taxability in the hands of the Cooperative Housing Society, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai in ITO vs. Lotia Court Co-op Housing Society Ltd., reported in (2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mumbai Bench of Tribunal that there is no question of taxability of receipt on account of sale of additional floor space index received by the assessee by virtue of transfer of TDRs under the Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 1991. The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Jethalal D. Metha's case (supra) vide order dated 27-1-2005 had held that the receipt on sale of assignment of rights to receive TDRs was not liable to tax. 6. In the facts of the present case before us, the assessee society and not the members of the assessee society have been taxed in respect of receipts arising on account of TDR. There is no merit in the order of Assessing Officer and we confirm the order of CIT(A) in this respect. The receipts aris....