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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...