Mumbai:The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered to Thane based builder to pay Rs.7.5L for irregularities and practicing fake business practice. According to the senior officials said that, M/S Animesh Enterprises to pay Mangesh Ghadge a total of Rs 7.5 lakh for providing smaller flat than the promised.
The builder has made contract with Ghadge on June 6, 2009. The builder was ready to sell the property measuring 600sq ft on the 3rd floor of the proposed building. The 222.4 sq mtr land at Lohar Lane, Thane, on which the construction was set to take place, belonged to Ghadge. The agreement also provided that the completed flat would be handed over on or before November 27,2001.
As per the deed Ghdage only have to pay Rs.6L to builder as he was owner of the land and will get flat on discounted rate. Whereas, there was delay in possession of flat and he got only 450 sq ft flat instead of promised 600 sq ft in 2003. In the aftermath of this Ghadge filed a complaint with Thane District Forum in 2004.

Vedica Astrologers are providing host of astrology services under one roof free online horoscope on line built using our in house software so you don’t have to wait and directly get your horoscope online on ourt website free of cost just register on the website, along with this u can see through free daily weekly,monthly,love,yearly horoscope.plus paid reports online.

Vedica Astrologers have just opened new office in safdarjung enclave ( B-7/2 Safdarjung enclave near deer park) n.d 29 people wanting face to face personalized consultation now can visit us.we are providing yantras, rudraksh and other remedial services like authentic vedic hindu puja lead by our astrologer and her team of learned pundits.

Vedica Astrologers have also started a vastu centre att he above address as our astrologer is a certified vastu consultant. we speacialze in vastu without demolishing structure . we can write some thing about vastu. something like exclusive vastu using your horoscope and vastu principles.

Reach them here www.vedicastrologysigns.com.

The Reserve Bank of India today notified that M/s. Dewan Housing Finance
Corporation Limited has passed resolutions at the board of directors’ level and at a
special resolution by the shareholders, to enhance the limit for purchase of its equity
shares and convertible debentures by Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs), through
primary market and stock exchanges, under the Portfolio Investment Scheme to
60 per cent of its paid up capital.
Foreign Institutional Investors can now purchase equity shares and
convertible debentures of M/s. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited through
primary market and stock exchanges under the Portfolio Investment Scheme,
provided :
• FIIs through primary market and stock exchanges up to 60 per cent of
the paid up capital of the company under Portfolio Investment Scheme.

Mumbai:Today the Builders Association of India (BAI) has asked for extraction of new amended Development Control Rules (DCR), citing that they discriminate against the suburbs with regard to redevelopment rules.
Anand Gupta Honorary Tresurer of BAI has said that “the amended DC rules will hamper and render any development work of smaller size plots impossible in view of the huge open space requirement.”
He added that, “this is contrary to the amenities provided for redevelopment in the island city, where these norms are not yet practically implemented.”
According to the senior officials of authority said that not only BAI wants to withdraw from new DCR but also the Mumbai District Co-operative Housing Societies Federation and Architects & Engineers had come out strongly against the new DC rules.
BAI also said that, civic body has framed severe safety requirements which will deter the redevelopment of cessed buildings.

NOIDA: The flat owners of cooperative housing society may move to court for help as Noida Authority have been charged them under hefty fines for unable to register their housing units on time. According to the flat owners, the Noida Authority has alleged that they haven’t registered their houses. As owners have missed the deadline of 25th Jan which has been fixed by the Apex court on inability to submit completion certificate mandatory for home registration.
President of Federation of RWAs of Sector 62, S M Singh said that “there are several societies those still haven’t done with the issuing of completion certificate whereas members have purchased flats decade back.”

Mumbai:On Tuesday Peddar road residents moved to Bombay High Court opposing to construction of a proposed film museum, an amphitheater and a basement parking lot in the area. Emphasizing it to direct the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Director General of Films Division to shift the project to Film City in Goregaon, which they termed “an appropriate alternative location.”
Despite alleging irregularities in granting permission for construction activities by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), residents of St Helen’s Court, Sterling Co-operative Housing Society, Ajoomal Co-operative Housing Society and Sett Minar Co-operative Housing Society, have also said that the proposed construction in the Films Division premises at Peddar Road violates the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, Development Control (DC) Regulations and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) regulations.

There are so far 25 housing societies have applied for polling booths in their vicinity

Pune: The commissioner of state election Neela Satyanarayan has allowed setting up polling booths in private properties comprising co-operative housing societies has taken a robust move in the right direction.
The State Election Commission (SEC) has taken this decision as schools and colleges are engaged due to exams are going, so because of this only SEC has taken this alternate step for the ease of civic polls in Maharashtra which will be held in the second half of February. This decision is welcome as it stands to serve a larger purpose.
On the other hand another reason would be that, the polling response from the cooperative housing societies are very poor, SEC senior official said. Another big reason is the big dilemma over voter list, so it would certainly help us, they added. This method will also benefit to save the timing.
In the aftermath of this decision, there are so far 25 housing societies have applied for polling booths in their vicinity

Kushal K. Bangia vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – In principle, though the scope of “income” in s. 2(24) is very wide, a capital receipt is not chargeable to tax as income unless there is a specific provision to that effect. As the residential flat owned by the assessee in the society’s building was a capital asset in his hands, the compensation was a capital receipt.

The department’s argument that the cash compensation was a “share in profits earned by the developer” is not acceptable because it proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of the payer determines the nature in the hands of the recipient. However, as the said receipt reduced the cost of acquisition of the new flat, it had to be taken into when computing the gains from a transfer thereof in the future

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

I.T.A No.2349/ Mum/2011 Assessment year: 2007-08

Kushal K Bangia

Vs

Income Tax officer

Date of pronouncement : 31 .01.2012

ORDER

Per Pramod Kumar:

1. By way of this appeal, the assessee has called into question correctness of CIT(A)’s order dated 9th December, 2010, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:

“1. The ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition at Rs.11,75,000 received by the assessee as cash compensation. He has further erred in confirming the said addition to the income under the head income from other source. The reasons assigned by him doing the same are wrong and insufficient. Provisions of the act ought to have been properly construed and applied. Regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the said addition ought to have been deleted, being in the nature of capital receipt.

2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, and as an alternative ground of appeal, the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of rs.11,75,000 received by the assessee as cash compensation under the head income from other sources, instead of long term capital gain. The reasons assigned by him doing the same are wrong and insufficient. Provisions of the act ought to have been properly construed and applied. Regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the said addition ought to have been assessed as capital gains.”

2. The issue in appeal lies in a narrow compass of undisputed facts. The assessee before us is an individual and he had received a sum of Rs.11,75,000 on account of what he now terms as, ‘cash compensation’. It is taxability of this amount of Rs.11,75,000 which is in dispute before us, and it is, therefore, necessary to understand the back ground in which this amount was received. The assessee was member of a housing society by the name of Vile Parle Ramesh CHS Ltd. This housing society, alongwith it’s members, entered into an agreement with a developer, and, under the said agreement, the developer was to demolish the residential building owned by the housing society, and reconstruct a new multistoried building by using the FSI arising out of the property, and by utilizing outside TDR under Development control Regulations. Under this arrangement, the assessee, as a member of the housing society, received a slightly larger flat in the new building, which had an additional area of 173 Sq. ft, a displacement compensation of Rs.6,12,000, which was computed @ Rs.34,000 p.m. for the period of construction of the new building, and an additional compensation of Rs.11,75,000. On these undisputed facts, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the cash compensation of Rs.11,75,000 is required to be treated as ‘casual income’, and, accordingly, taxable in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax estimated value of additional area in the new flat, but since CIT(A) has deleted the same and revenue is stated to be not in appeal against the same, we are not really concerned with the same. Aggrieved, inter alia, by this addition of Rs.11,75,000 on account of cash compensation, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is in further appeal before us.

3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.

4. In our considered view, it is only elementary that the connotation of income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes “any capital gains chargeable under section 45”, and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot be taken as income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmraje R. Kardambande vs CIT (195 ITR 877) has observed that “..,, we hold that the amounts received by the assessee during the financial years in question have to be regarded as capital receipts, and, therefore, (emphasis supplied by us), are not income within meaning of section 2(24) of the Income tax Act….” This clearly implies, as is the settled legal position in our understanding, that a capital receipt in principle is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and a receipt cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of revenue receipt or is brought within the ambit of income by way of a specific provision in the Act. No matter how wide be the scope of income u/s.2(24) it cannot obliterate the distinction between capital receipt and revenue receipt. It is not even the case of the Assessing Officer that the compensation received by the assessee is in the revenue field, and rightly so because the residential flat owned by the assessee in society building is certainly a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and compensation is referable to the same. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. George Thomas K vs CIT(156 ITR 412), “the burden is on the revenue to establish that the receipt is of revenue nature” though “once the receipt is found to be of revenue character, whether it comes under exemption or not, it is for the assessee to establish”. The only defence put up by learned Departmental Representative is that cash compensation received by the assessee is nothing but his share in profits earned by the developer which are essentially revenue items in nature. This argument however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it’s nature in the hands of the recipient. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460), “it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer”. The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really relevant in