The Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) recently held that the cost paid by a taxpayer for obtaining additional area in a redevelopment project constitutes investment in the new residential property. As a result, the amount paid including for the optional extra built-up area qualifies for exemption from capital gains tax.
Background
·
As part of
redevelopment project, the taxpayer entered into an agreement with the
developer to redevelop his two old flats and received newly constructed flats
in return. He also opted to purchase extra built-up area at a pre-agreed rate
as part of the same arrangement.
·
In his
return of income, he claimed exemption from capital gain tax on the entire
investment, including the additional area cost.
·
The
Assessing Officer (AO) denied exemption on the additional area, treating it as
a separate and independent purchase unrelated to the main redevelopment.
·
The AO
further contended that only the portion corresponding to the area given up in
redevelopment should qualify for exemption. The AO also substituted the actual
cost paid by the taxpayer with higher values derived from municipal
ready-reckoner rates, based on an incorrect valuation zone.
·
The CIT(A)
allowed the full exemption to the taxpayer.
·
The Revenue
challenged this decision before the Tribunal.
Taxpayer Contentions
·
The newly
allotted flats including the optional additional area formed one integrated
residential property acquired under the same redevelopment agreement.
·
The
documented cost represented genuine investment and could not be replaced with
notional rates.
Tribunal’s Findings
·
The entire
acquisition, including the extra built-up area, was part of a single
redevelopment transaction and could not be separated.
·
The Tribunal
relied on the Bombay High Court’s decision that a new flat received under
redevelopment constitutes valid acquisition for claiming exemption.
·
Therefore,
the amount paid for the additional area formed part of the genuine investment
in the new property and qualified fully for exemption.
·
The AO used
the wrong ready-reckoner zone, making the substituted valuation arbitrary and
not sustainable.
Key Takeaway
The ruling clarifies that when a residential property is obtained through redevelopment, the total investment including the cost of any additional area purchased under the same transaction qualifies for exemption. Actual costs paid by the taxpayer must be considered and cannot be substituted with notional or ready-reckoner values.
No comments:
Post a Comment