Surrendering tenancy rights for a larger redeveloped flat constitutes capital gains qualifying for Section 54F exemption.

By | July 16, 2026
0 Comment

Surrendering tenancy rights for a larger redeveloped flat constitutes capital gains qualifying for Section 54F exemption.

Issue

  • Whether the receipt of a larger flat as permanent alternate accommodation under a redevelopment arrangement in lieu of surrendering tenancy rights constitutes property received for inadequate consideration taxable under section 56(2)(x), or a transfer of a capital asset chargeable under the head ‘Capital gains’.

  • Whether the assessee is entitled to a tax deduction under section 54F when the entire consideration received from surrendering those residential tenancy rights is reinvested into the new redeveloped residential property.

Facts

  • During the assessment year 2018-19, the assessee surrendered tenancy rights in an old municipal residential flat.

  • Under a redevelopment arrangement, the assessee received a larger flat as permanent alternate accommodation.

  • The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the additional area received by the assessee as a receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration and taxed its value under section 56(2)(x) under the head ‘Income from other sources’.

  • The assessee contested the addition, arguing that the transaction fell under the head ‘Capital gains’ and alternatively claimed a deduction under section 54F since the entire consideration from the surrender was reinvested into the new flat.

Decision

  • Held, yes: The issue was decided entirely in favor of the assessee, and the tax addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(x) was ruled bad in law.

  • Capital Gains Applicable: The surrender of tenancy rights legally amounts to a “transfer” of a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47), making the transaction chargeable exclusively under the head ‘Capital gains’ via sections 45 and 48.

  • Section 56(2)(x) Inapplicable: The receipt of a larger redeveloped flat as alternate accommodation does not equate to receiving immovable property for inadequate consideration, thereby precluding the application of section 56(2)(x).

  • Section 54F Exemption Allowed: Because the entire consideration receivable on the surrender of the old tenancy rights was fully reinvested into the new residential property, the assessee satisfies all requirements for a deduction under section 54F.

Key Takeaways

  • Proper Head of Income: The surrender of commercial or residential tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset. The Revenue cannot arbitrarily reclassify capital transactions under ‘Income from other sources’ to deny statutory exemptions.

  • Redevelopment Accommodations: Receiving a substituted, expanded flat from a developer in exchange for existing property or tenancy rights is a structured transactional exchange, not a regular “gift” or an unequal acquisition of property under anti-abuse provisions like section 56(2)(x).

  • Exemption Alignment: Capital gains arising from the surrender of tenancy rights can be completely offset by utilizing section 54F if the real estate consideration is seamlessly re-deployed into the resulting redeveloped home.

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘SMC’
Anant Ramchandra Dhotre
v.
Income Tax Officer
Pawan Singh, Judicial Member
and Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member
IT Appeal No. 7208 (MUM.) of 2025
[Assessment year 2018-19]
JUNE  5, 2026
Nishit Gandhi, Adv. for the Appellant. Ujjwal Kumar, Sr. DR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member. – This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080735328(1) dated 15-Sep-2025 passed against assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Assessment Unit of the Income-tax Department (NeAC) for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
ON NATURAL JUSTICE
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), [“Ld. CIT (A)”] deserves to be quashed and set aside for failure of principles of Natural Justice in as much as the order is a non-speaking order, sans any independent reasoning is passed without giving due consideration to the submissions filed by the Appellant.
ON JURISDICTION:
2. In the fact in circumstances of the case and in law, the implied assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” for short] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre /National E-assessment Centre [“the NFAC” or “the AO” for short] is bad in law and void for want of jurisdiction.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the impugned assessment order is bad in law and void since the same is passed in violation of section 144B of the Act.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the impugned assessment order is bad in law and void also because the same is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act.
ON MERITS:
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), [“Ld. CIT (A)”] erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of 230,74,870/- in the hands of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act.
6. While doing so, the learned CIT(A), failed to appreciate that:
(i) The provisions of section 56 (2)(x) are not at all applicable in the present case;
(ii) To the admission of the learned Assessing Officer (AO) himself, the additional area of 230 square feet (sq. ft.) received by the Assessee is a part of the consideration received from the builder on surrender of tenancy rights and therefore cannot be treated as income from other sources;
(iii) No income actually accrued to the Appellant on receipt of a constructed ownership flat in the redeveloped building on surrendering his tenancy rights;
(iv) In any case, the receipt of additional area is in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and therefore cannot at all be treated as income and certainly cannot be treated as income from other sources.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the orders of the lower authorities deserve to be reversed, being completely contrary to law, and it is prayed accordingly.
8. Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the exemption under section 54F of the Act to the appellant since the constructed flat received by the appellant is in lieu of surrender of tenancy rights and all the conditions prescribed under section 54F are fulfilled by the appellant
and therefore the entire consideration on surrender of tenancy rights is invested in the new constructed flat and therefore the same is exempt under section 54F of the Act.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in segregating the flat received by the assessee into two separate components on frivolous and superficial grounds.
2.1. The issue involved in this appeal is in respect of addition made on account of invoking provisions of section 56(2)(x) towards flat received by the assessee by way of permanent alternate accommodation upon surrendering of the tenancy rights in the old tenanted property.
3. Briefly stated, facts relevant in this regard are that assessee was a tenant of the building in Dr. D.L. Vaidya Road, Dadar (W) Mumbai. The old flat was a tenanted property of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The original tenant was the father of the assessee, Shri Ramachandra Laxman Dhotre. He died on 03.02.1999. Assessee inherited the tenancy. This flat was Room No. 1, Plot No. 30, New Miranda Wadi, D.L. Vaidya Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028, admeasuring 441 Sq. Ft. After adding fungible area, the area came to about 600 Sq. Ft. As per the Development Agreement of 2007, by way Permanent Alternate Accommodation, assessee was to get a new flat on 1st Floor of 730 Sq. Ft. but, due commercial construction on 1st floor, assessee was re-allotted a flat on the 23rd floor. Being aggrieved on this re-allotment, assessee approached the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the suit no.877 of 2016. Hon’ble Court ordered to allot flat on the 22nd floor, plus stamp duty and registration charges were to be paid by the developer. In, addition, the developer was to give the assessee Rs.14,50,000/- towards legal hassles compensation. An amount of Rs.4,60,000/- was paid by the assessee for extra amenities.
3.1. Direction given by the Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid suit filed by the assessee vide order dated 26.10.2016 is extracted below:
“1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and the following order is passed by consent:
i. The Defendants shall provide a Flat admeasuring 830 sq.ft. (carpet area) on the 22nd Floor of the Suit building to the Plaintiff.
An Agreement for Permanent Alternate Accommodation shall be executed within a period of three weeks from today by and between the parties and an amount of Rs.14,50,000/- shall be paid towards hardship compensation to the Plaintiff upon execution of the Agreement for Permanent Alternate Accommodation.
The additional stamp duty and registration charges shall be borne by the Defendants.”
3.2. The area of flat occupied by the assessee including fungible area was around 600 Sq. Ft. In the agreement for providing permanent alternate accommodation, assessee has been allotted a flat of 830 Sq. Ft. in lieu of surrendering the tenancy right. Ld. Assessing Officer computed the value of the extra area of 230 Sq. Ft., on the basis of value adopted for stamp duty purpose at Rs.35,34,870/- and added Rs.30,74,870/- as the income of assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’ u/s 56(2)(x) after giving credit for the amount of Rs.4,60,000/- further paid by the assessee.
3.3. Ld. Assessing Officer computed the amount taxable in the hands of the assessee as under, against which assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). This appeal is against the addition of Rs.30,74,870/-made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. The computation made by the ld. AO in this regard is as under:
Old area of the property : 600 Sq. Ft.
New area of the property received under rehabilitation : 830 Sq. Ft
Extra area allotted under rehabilitation : 230 Sq. Ft.
Market Value as discussed in para 5(Per Sq. Ft) : Rs. 15,369/-
Income accruing in the hands of assessee (15,369×230) : Rs. 35,34,870/-
Less: Consideration amount paid for extra amenities : (-) Rs.4,60,000/-
Income from other sources : Rs. 30,74,870/-

 

4. Assessee furnished detailed submissions and explanations at the first appellate stage. He also alternatively submitted that deduction u/s.54F is available to him since the value of new flat represents consideration received for surrendering the rights in the old flat plus Rs.4,60,000/- paid by him as this consideration receivable on surrender of rights of old tenanted flat stood re-invested in the new flat. According to him, there is no taxable income generated on the said transaction as the entire consideration receivable on surrender of tenancy rights in the old tenanted property has been reinvested in the new property. He does not own any other residential property and thus, entitled for deduction u/s. 54F.
4.1. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee, did not find favor with him and confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer by applying section 56(2)(x) for the fair value of the additional benefit received without adequate consideration. He noted that additional 230 sq. ft. received by the assessee represents a distinct benefit which falls within the purview of section 56(2)(x). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the aforesaid factual position. He referred to the documentary evidences placed in the paper book filed by the assessee containing 128 pages to corroboratively demonstrate the factual matrix. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Anil Dattaram Pitale v. ITO  (Mumbai – Trib.)/ITA No. 465/Mum/2025, dated 17.03.2025 which is also for the same assessment year, i.e., Assessment Year 2018-19.
6. We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below as well as judicial precedents relied upon. At the outset, there is no dispute on the surrender of tenancy rights in the old tenanted property against which assessee has received the new flat by way of permanent alternate accommodation. Also, there is no dispute that tenancy right is a capital asset whose transfer by way of surrender attracts provisions of section 45, so as to bring to charge capital gain arising thereon. Such capital gain is an income under the head ‘capital gain’ as provided u/s. 14(E).
6.1. The bone of contention is on the additional area of 230 sq. ft. which the assessee received comprised in the total area of 830 sq. ft in the new flat against the area of 600 sq. ft. of the old tenanted flat. In this regard, the direction given by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the suit filed by the assessee against the developer has the direct bearing. In para-1(i) of the judgement by the Hon’ble Court, the direction given to the builder is to provide a flat admeasuring 830 sq. ft. (carpet area) on the 22nd floor of the suit building to the assessee. Thus, what the assessee got from the developer against the surrender of old tenanted flat is under the direction of the Hon’ble Court.
6.2. On the other aspect of assessee making a payment of Rs. 4,60,000/- to the developer, the fact of the matter is that it was paid for the extra amenities which the assessee availed from the builder while taking over the new flat. In this regard, the receipt issued by the builder, placed in the paper book categorically mentions that it received the said amount from the assessee for providing better and additional amenities/facilities in the flat of the Rehab Building. Contents of this receipt are reproduced for ready reference:
“Received of and from the within named Mr. Anant. R. Dhotre the sum Rs.4,60,000/- (Rupees four lakh sixty thousand only) vide cheque No. 307285 date 26/07/07 drawn on Dena Bank for providing better and additional Amenities/facilities in the Flat of the building, which will be developed by us on plot No.144, TPS-IV Mahim Division, known as Fernandes wadi for Manshati coop Hsg Soc Lt D.L. Vaidya Rd, Dadar (W). Mumbai 400 028.”
6.3. Thus, on the above factual matrix what the ld. Assessing Officer has sought to tax is the extra area granted by the developer of 230 sq. ft. (830-600) in the new property. He computed excess of stamp duty valuation of the property over the amount paid for allotment of the permanent alternate accommodation on the excess area of 230 sq. ft and gave credit for the amount paid by the assessee of Rs. 4,60,000/-for extra amenities and added the same in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources by applying the provisions of section 56(2)(x).
7. On the above factual matrix, we find that it is a case of extinguishment of rights in an old flat in lieu of which assessee has received a new flat by way of permanent alternate accommodation. There is a transfer of tenancy rights by way of surrender falling within the meaning of section 2(47). Income if any, on this transaction is chargeable as capital gain, u/s. 45 r.w.s. 48. It cannot be treated as an income falling under the head ‘income from other sources’ to apply section 56(2)(x). This is not a case of receipt of an immovable property by the assessee for inadequate consideration, so as to come within the purview of section 56(2)(x). We refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.  383 ITR 217 (SC) wherein it was held that if a particular income is covered under any other head, it cannot be included under the head ‘income from other sources’.
7.1. Present case before us is not a case where what assessee received is a freebie extended to him so as to apply the deeming provision of the section 56(2)(x). In the alternate for the stand taken by the ld. AO, assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F. The consideration receivable on transfer of surrender of tenancy rights is the same as market value of this asset as at the point of time when it was given to the assessee without any payments made by him. Assessee had paid an extra amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- for the amenities/facilities in the new asset. Thus, the value of the new flat represents the consideration received for surrendering the rights in the old flat plus Rs.4,60,000/-paid by the assessee. The entire consideration receivable on this account towards surrender of rights in the whole tenanted property, has been reinvested in the new property making assessee eligible for deduction u/s. 54F. In this regard, we make useful reference to the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Balmukund P. Acharya v. ITO [2011]  48 SOT 385 (Mumbai) which dealt with similar factual matrix and held in favor of the assessee. On this accord also, there is no taxable income arising in the hands of the assessee for the impugned transaction. Accordingly, addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer by applying provisions of section 56(2)(x) are bad in law and not justified. The same is deleted. Grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.
8. Since we have dealt on issue raised by the assessee on the merits of the case, legal issues raised are not adjudicated upon and left open.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.