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

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.