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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more