Skip to main content

No capital gains on sale of FSI by housing societies, rules Bombay HC

A housing society does not have to pay any capital gains tax when it sells additional floor space index (FSI) to a builder, according to a recent Bombay high court decision.

Development Control Regulations (DCR), 1991, provide for grant of additional FSI if an existing building is redeveloped. The society can utilize it either for extension of the existing building, construction of a new building or even sell it to a builder.

When the additional FSI was sold to a builder, it typically resulted in an endless bout of tax litigation, which will be put to rest with the Bombay high court order. This favourable order will bring cheer to many old housing societies that have entered into redevelopment agreements or plan to do so.

Lower Parel's Sambhaji Nagar Coop Housing Society, owing to reconstruction of its old buildings, generated an additional FSI (as per DCR), which it sold to a builder for Rs 2.2 crore. Authorities sought to tax the sale proceeds as capital gains. The society won an appeal at the tax tribunal level.

The tax department, though, took the matter to the high court.

Capital gains is the difference between the sale proceeds minus the indexed cost of acquisition.

Hitesh R Shah, partner, SHR and Co, a firm of chartered accountants, explains the recent order. HC has taken into consideration the amendment in tax laws, which have brought tenancy rights in the ambit of capital gains. However, regarding a housing society's sale of additional FSI (received in the form of TDR) to the developer, HC held it was generated by the plot itself and there was no cost of acquisition. Thus, the question of computing capital gains for tax purposes didn't arise."

Experts hasten to point out that HC dealt with capital gains arising in the hands of a housing society on the sale of additional FSI or TDR where there was no cost of acquisition. The same order cannot be stretched to apply to members of a housing society who transfer their existing flats to the developer in lieu of a new one.

This transaction between members of the housing society and the developer could be regarded as a 'transfer' for the purpose of capital gains and could, depending on the facts of each individual case, result in capital gains.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/No-capital-gains-on-sale-of-FSI-by-housing-societies-rules-Bombay-HC/articleshow/45580062.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even