Vijay Kumar Bhan vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Vijay Kumar Bhan, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee challenged the addition of Rs.3,99,000 as 'income from other sources' made by the Assessing Officer, which was treated as a revenue receipt under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the amount was a compensation for late possession of a flat, which should be considered a capital receipt. The Tribunal heard the submissions and reviewed the materials on record. The Tribunal found that the compensation received by the assessee was indeed a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt, and thus deleted the impugned addition.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the compensation for late possession of a flat is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt?
• 2. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer is valid?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Mr. Subhash Suryakant Phadkar Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• VS Trust vs The ITO, NCW-3(5), Chennai

• Smt. Urmila Dhelia v/s Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai benchAY 2011-12Partly Allowed

• Rizwana Mohamed Bhopalwala Individual and Mohamed Enayat Bhopalwala Individual vs. ITO, Int. Taxation Ward 1 (2) (1)

  Mumbai bench

• Dimple Bhatia Batta vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre

  Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Shastri Lal Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed