Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/2292/2011 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/2292/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 25 Mumbai v. Raj Ratan Palace Co-Op Hsg. Society

High Court 27 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2292/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 25 Mumbai v. Raj Ratan Palace Co-Op Hsg. Society
Date of order
27 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
1997-98
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/2292/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 25 Mumbai v. Raj Ratan Palace Co-Op Hsg. Society, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2292 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-25..Appellant.V/s.Raj Ratan Palace Co-operative Housing Society..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.Mr. Shashi Tulsiyan with Mr. P. C. Tripathi, for the Respondent. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 27[th] FEBRUARY, 2013. In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 1997-98 several questions have been raised for our consideration. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Counsel appearing for the Revenue is pressing only Question (a) which reads as under:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that amount received cannot be taxed in the hands of assessee society because society continues to be owner of the land as no change in ownership of land has taken place without appreciation the fact that the assessee has received compensation of Rs.3,02,16,828/-for granting the developer the right to develop the property which is clearly taxable as per provisions of Section 2(24) read with Section 2(47) and 2(14) of the Income Tax Act? 2The Revenue seeks to tax the society in respect of the amount received on transfer of TDR. The Tribunal in the impugned order recorded a finding of fact that the amount which was received on the transfer of TDR was received by members of Respondent-Society. The members of the Society had offered the amounts received by them to tax in their individual returns. In fact, copies of orders of the Tribunal in respect of individual members who received amount from the developers and offered to tax was also placed before the Tribunal. 3As the decision is based on a finding of fact which is not challenged by the Revenue as being perverse, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan