Narayan Devarajn Iyengar v. ITO
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Redevelopment receipts of a non-resident: corpus, alternate accommodation rent and hardship allowance as capital or revenue receipts.
Result: Partly allowed. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Redevelopment receipts of a non-resident: corpus, alternate accommodation rent and hardship allowance as capital or revenue receipts.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
Narayan Devarajan Iyengar A–63, Flat no.597, MIG Colony ……………. Appellant Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051 PAN – ADCPI7958N
Narayan Devarajan Iyengar A–63, Flat no.597, MIG Colony ……………. Applicant Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East) (Original Appellant) Mumbai 400 051 PAN – ADCPI7958N
Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram a/w Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Shri Dilip K. Shah
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:–
Appellant / assessee submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the appellant's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
7. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the
8. We find that while dealing with a similar issue of taxability of hardship
displacement. We find that in Smt. Delilah Raj Mansukhani vs ITO, ITA No.
of the Tribunal held the same to be in the nature of capital receipt since the
occupants of the flat. In the present case, we find that the assessee has
Operative decision and relief
"3.2 Nothing contrary was brought to my knowledge on behalf of Revenue. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, I find that consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not relevant in determining the nature of receipt in the hands of the assessee. In view of these discussion, in my considered view, assessee could not be said to be of revenue nature, and, accordingly, the same is outside the ambit of income under section 2(24) of the Act. The impugned receipt ends up reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset, i.e. flat, and, therefore, the same will be taken into account as such, as and when occasion arises for computing capital gains in respect of the said asset. Subject to these observations, the appeal of assessee is allowed."
order is set aside and ordered to be deleted.
and 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal are allowed.
12. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Redevelopment receipts of a non-resident: corpus, alternate accommodation rent and hardship allowance as capital or revenue receipts. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with redevelopment receipts of a non-resident: corpus, alternate accommodation rent and hardship allowance as capital or revenue receipts. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Narayan Devarajn Iyengar v. ITO?
Redevelopment receipts of a non-resident: corpus, alternate accommodation rent and hardship allowance as capital or revenue receipts.
Which facts matter most?
Narayan Devarajan Iyengar A–63, Flat no.597, MIG Colony ……………. Appellant Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051 PAN – ADCPI7958N
What did the ITAT Mumbai decide?
12. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Redevelopment receipts of a non-resident: corpus, alternate accommodation rent and hardship allowance as capital or revenue receipts. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
The exact provisions identified in the packaged judgment and their version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Redevelopment receipts of a non-resident: corpus, alternate accommodation rent and hardship allowance as capital or revenue receipts - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Addl. CIT v. Tejal Ashis Mehta - Court / Tribunal to be verified
Different outcome / possible distinction
- No source-reviewed contrasting case is linked yet.
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.