The Purchase

The registered sale agreement, dated 4 April 2012, recorded the total consideration for the flat at ₹72 lakh. Katkade filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring an income of ₹2,71,280. The IT Department processed the return and accepted it without objection. For Katkade, the matter was closed.

The Raid He Knew Nothing About

On 24 September 2014 — more than two years after Katkade had taken possession of his flat — the IT Department’s investigation wing conducted a search and seizure operation at the offices of Cosmos Group, the builder. Cosmos Group was engaged in real estate development and construction across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region.

During the raid, investigators claimed to have found Excel sheets containing flatwise and shopwise cash payment records, emails in the builder’s Gmail and Yahoo accounts, and what they described as a cash book of on-money received from buyers. Two key persons were questioned — Karuna Khambayat, the Sales Head of Cosmos Group, who made a general admission that cash payments were often involved in the sale of flats and shops, and Suraj Parmar, son of promoter Ramesh Parmar, who spoke about cash transactions in the business.

Flat No. 802 — Katkade’s flat — appeared in those Excel sheets with cash figures against it.

Katkade was not present during the raid. He was not questioned. No one from the IT Department contacted him. He had no knowledge that a file bearing his flat number now existed inside the investigation wing.

Five Years of Silence, Then a Bombshell

For nearly five years after the raid, nothing happened. Then, on 29 March 2019 — seven years after the original flat purchase and five years after the Cosmos Group raid — Katkade received a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The IT Department was reopening his already-closed assessment for AY 2012-13.

The basis was information passed by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 1(4), Mumbai. The Assessing Officer (AO) had obtained prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT-2), Thane. The allegation was stark — that Katkade had paid ₹34.5 lakh in cash over and above the registered agreement value, split as ₹28.5 lakh in AY 2012-13 and ₹6 lakh in AY 2013-14. Since Katkade held a 50% share in the flat, the AO proposed to add ₹14.25 lakh — 50% of ₹28.5 lakh — to his income for AY 2012-13 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

The Letter the IT Department Refused to Believe

Katkade fought back. He filed a fresh return in response to the notice, denied paying any on-money, and asked the AO to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer for an independent valuation. The AO rejected that request, saying the case did not pertain to flat valuation.

When the AO issued a show cause notice asking Katkade to explain why ₹14.25 lakh should not be added to his income, Katkade did something significant. He went back to Cosmos Group and obtained a written confirmation letter from the builder stating that the total amount received from Katkade and his wife for Flat No. 802 was ₹72 lakh — nothing more, nothing less. The very builder whose internal records the IT Department was relying upon to allege cash payment was now confirming in writing that no such additional payment existed.

The AO dismissed the letter entirely and made the addition anyway, relying instead on the Excel sheet from the raid and the statements of Suraj Parmar and Karuna Khambayat.

There was one more problem — the actual incriminating documents, the Excel sheets, the emails, the cash book, were never shown to Katkade at any stage of the assessment. He was being taxed on the basis of evidence he had never seen.

Appeal Rejected, Fight Continues

Katkade appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) — CIT(A) — at Panaji. He raised three arguments: that the reopening of the assessment after seven years was itself legally invalid; that the addition was baseless since no evidence had ever been produced before him; and that he had been denied the right to cross-examine Karuna Khambayat and Suraj Parmar, whose statements were being used against him.

The CIT(A) rejected all three. On the cross-examination request — a right firmly established by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE — the CIT(A) gave a puzzling response, holding that the addition was not based only on the incriminating material and therefore cross-examination was not required. The order was passed on 26 September 2025.

ITAT: The Addition Was Never Sustainable

Katkade’s chartered accountant, Subodh Ratnaparkhi, filed an appeal before the ITAT Mumbai in November 2025. The case came up for hearing on 18 March 2026 before a two-member bench of Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar.

Before the Tribunal, Ratnaparkhi placed on record five previous ITAT orders where identical additions had been made against other Cosmos Group flat buyers — and deleted in every single case. The buyers included Bharat Laxman Bhiwapurkar, Mamta Sharad Gupta, and Monika Anand Gupta. In each case, the basis was the same Excel sheet, the same statement of Suraj Parmar, and the same methodology. In each case, the Tribunal had ruled against the IT Department.

The Revenue’s Senior Departmental Representative, Usha Gaikwad, supported the lower authorities and argued that the statements and seized material were sufficient basis for the addition.

The Tribunal was unconvinced. In its order pronounced on 4 June 2026, the bench held that the addition was based solely on third-party statements, which cannot be used as evidence against a buyer without cross-examination. It further held that the Excel sheet was inadmissible as electronic evidence since it had not been authenticated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The actual seized documents — the emails and cash books — had never been brought on record before any authority at any stage. The builder’s own confirmation letter confirming ₹72 lakh had been ignored without any valid reason. Following five coordinate bench decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal deleted the addition entirely.

Since Katkade had won on merit, the bench did not even find it necessary to rule on whether the 2019 reopening was legally valid in the first place.

What This Means for Homebuyers

The Katkade case is not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern. The ITAT has now deleted on-money additions linked to Cosmos Group in at least six cases, consistently finding that the Excel sheets seized during the 2014 raid are inadmissible, that general admissions by builder insiders cannot be attributed to specific buyers without corroboration, and that denying buyers the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are used against them is a violation of natural justice.

For homebuyers across India, the case carries a broader warning. A builder raid can trigger tax demands against buyers years or even decades after a purchase. The IT Department can reopen assessments using information from someone else’s search. And the buyer — who had no part in that raid, never saw those documents, and may have paid every rupee above board — can find themselves fighting a tax addition based entirely on a figure in someone else’s spreadsheet.

The only protection is documentation. A registered agreement, a complete payment trail through banking channels, and written confirmations from the builder at the time of purchase are a homebuyer’s best defence if the taxman comes knocking years later.

For Katkade, that defence ultimately worked — but it took fourteen years, two appeals, and a Tribunal order to prove it.

The order is dated June 4, 2026.

Also Read: ITAT Mumbai Clears Real Estate Developer of Fraud Allegations, Allows ₹1.79 Crore Tax Deduction

The post Builder Confirmed No Cash, IT Department Didn’t Believe Homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

Sanjeevani Sanjay Rane, a resident of Bhandup, Mumbai, received a tax notice for Assessment Year 2017-18 after the Income Tax Department discovered that a flat was registered in her name. The department treated the entire purchase as her “unexplained investment” and slapped her with additions under Section 69B and 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The twist? The flat was entirely funded by her husband, Sanjay Rane.

According to the case details, the couple purchased the property for ₹52.81 lakh. Every single payment — from the booking amount to stamp duty, registration charges, and even the housing loan EMI — was made from the husband’s bank account. The home loan was also taken in his name from LIC Housing Finance. Sanjeevani’s name was added to the registered agreement purely for family convenience, a common practice in many Indian households.

Despite submitting strong evidence including bank statements, loan documents, payment schedules, and her husband’s ITR, the Assessing Officer and later the CIT(A) upheld the tax demand. The First Appellate Authority was particularly criticized by the Tribunal for ignoring its own remand report, where the Assessing Officer had already verified that all payments were made by the husband.

In a sharply worded order delivered on 21st May 2026, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench came down heavily in favour of the assessee.

The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Shri Amit Shukla and Accountant Member Shri Girish Agrawal, observed that the source of investment was “adequately explained.” The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)’s finding was in “stark contravention” to the facts verified in the remand report and called the approach “callous” and “depreciated” it.

“The addition made by the ld. AO is deleted,” the Tribunal ruled, allowing the appeal in full.

This verdict is being seen as a big relief for many families where properties are often registered jointly as a matter of trust and convenience, without any tax evasion intent.

Key Takeaway: Even in 2026, the age-old Indian practice of adding a spouse’s name in property documents can invite tax scrutiny if income tax returns are not filed properly and supporting documents are not maintained. This case proves that strong documentation and evidence can still win the day at the Tribunal level.

Also Read: SHOCKING: Preity Zinta Takes ₹2.93 Crore Hit on Bandra Luxury Flat – Is Mumbai’s Property Party Finally Over?

The post Mumbai Wife Gets ₹55 Lakh Tax Shock on a Flat She Never Paid For appeared first on Square Feat India.

The complainant, Palvinder Singh, had sought various reliefs, including a full refund with interest and compensation for mental harassment, as well as the resolution of persistent structural issues such as water leakages, tile cracks, and wall cracks in his flat.

MahaRERA, however, denied the request for a refund under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority observed that the Occupancy Certificate (OC) for the project was issued on January 17, 2020, prior to the stipulated possession date (including a six-month grace period) of June 30, 2020, as per the agreement for sale. Furthermore, the complainant took possession of the flat on March 8, 2021, well after the two-month period mandated by Section 19 of the Act for allottees to take possession after OC issuance. MahaRERA concluded that the project was completed within the agreed timeline, and any delay in taking possession was not attributable to the promoter, especially since possession was accepted without protest.

Despite denying the refund, the Authority found merit in the complainant’s plea regarding structural defects. A survey report dated October 26, 2024, submitted by the complainant, evidenced the presence of wall cracks and joint openings. Citing Section 14(3) of the Act, MahaRERA reiterated the promoter’s duty to rectify such defects within five years from the date of handing over possession, without additional charge, and within thirty days of being notified.

Given that the complaint was filed on May 1, 2024, well within the five-year statutory period from the possession date of March 8, 2021, MahaRERA directed Mohan Lifespaces LLP to rectify the identified structural defects in the flat within thirty days from the date of the order, bearing all costs.

All other reliefs sought by the complainant were rejected, and no order as to cost was made. This ruling underscores MahaRERA’s commitment to ensuring developers address post-possession structural issues, providing crucial relief to homebuyers facing such challenges.

Also Read: In Mumbai Around 50% Structures Do Not Have An OC

The post Homebuyer Wins Relief: Developer Ordered to Fix Structural Issues in Flat appeared first on Square Feat India.

Background of the Complaint

The complainant, Shah, is the promoter of a real estate project, while Chavare is the allottee who entered into an Agreement to Sale on December 31, 2014, for a flat priced at ₹20,40,000. At the time of the agreement, Chavare paid an earnest amount of ₹2,08,000, with the remainder due in stages as construction progressed. Despite repeated demand notices from Shah, Chavare failed to fulfill his payment obligations, leading to the complaint being filed on May 12, 2022.

Hearing Details

The hearing was scheduled on multiple occasions, with the last occurring on August 13, 2024. Notably, Chavare did not attend any hearings, prompting MahaRERA to proceed with the case ex-parte against him on May 30, 2024. His absence raised concerns about his commitment to the agreement, as he did not contest Shah’s claims.

Key Findings

1. Payment Discrepancies: The complaint highlighted inconsistencies in the total sale consideration and the earnest money paid, which varied across documents. The registered agreement was treated as the primary reference.
2. Legal Obligations: The order emphasized the responsibilities of the allottee under Section 19 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Chavare’s failure to make timely payments constituted a breach of these obligations.
3. Claim for Relief: Given the established facts and the respondent’s absence, the authority found in favor of the complainant, affirming his right to claim the outstanding sale consideration along with interest.

Final Order

MahaRERA ordered Chavare to pay the outstanding amount of ₹16,32,080, along with interest calculated at the State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2%. He is required to make this payment within 30 days from the date of the order.

In the event of non-payment, Shah is entitled to cancel the Agreement to Sale and refund the earnest money after deducting applicable dues, thereby allowing him to resell the flat to a third party.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations in real estate transactions. MahaRERA’s decision serves as a reminder for all parties involved in such agreements to fulfill their commitments to avoid legal repercussions. As the industry continues to evolve, regulatory measures like these are crucial in safeguarding the interests of both promoters and allottees.

Also Read: MahaRERA Temporarily Reverts to Old Website Amid Technical Challenges

The post After a Decade of Waiting, MahaRERA Orders Homebuyer to Settle Remaining Payment for Flat Booking appeared first on Square Feat India.

It is mandatory that every real estate agent has this registration number with them before they start the profession too.

Recently even MahaRERA Introduced an examination that checks how much a real estate agent is aware about the real estate industry
.
Passing this exam is mandatory for a real estate agent to get registered with MahaRERA.

However, MahaRERA came out with a list of 13,785 real estate agents who have lost their validity.

The list can be accessed here. The list was issued on MahaRERA website under the tag Real Estate Agents whose Registration validity has lapsed.

There are many real estate agents in the list hailing from Mumbai Metropolitan Region.

Also Read: Project deadline is extended only after receiving Guarantee of completion: MahaRERA

The post Hope you are not dealing with these Real Estate Agents appeared first on Square Feat India.

This measure will prevent home buyers getting cheated

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has decided on the “One Stand-alone Project: One MahaRERA Number” policy.

This important step has been taken to prevent cheating of homebuyers as certain instances have surfaced of developers obtaining two or more MahaRERA registration numbers for the same or part of a real estate project.

MahaRERA has issued an order in this regard which has come into force with immediate effect. As per the latest order, henceforth, every promoter applying for new registration of a housing project will have to submit Declaration-cum-Undertaking in the prescribed format on their letter head that neither the site of the proposed project nor any part of it have MahaRERA registration number; or is any application pending. This is applicable for stand-alone as well as multi-phased housing projects on large plots.

The prescribed format will contain details such as CS number, CTS number, final plot number, survey number, Hissa number, GAT number, Khasra number, etc.

If information submitted is found wrong, incorrect or misleading, MahaRERA will initiate appropriate action against such promoter.

It has come to the notice of MahaRERA that some promoters are applying for additional MahaRERA registration number for various reasons, without disclosing the same to the Authority, despite the plot or project already having a MahaRERA registration number. It has been observed that in some places the land owner, the promoters are different and they work independently and in some places the land owner contracts with more than one promoter. This creates multiple challenges and confusion in project’s completion. Such buildings face difficulties in getting Occupancy Certificates (OC). Resultant, the homebuyers end up facing difficulties in securing water supply and other basic civic facilities. To prevent such occurrences, MahaRERA has introduced the new policy of “One Stand-alone Project: One MahaRERA Number”.

Incase of a project on a large plot separate registration number for the project or phases can be obtained. However, any reservation on the plot as declared by the Government and Local Planning Authority cannot be changed without the formalities as prescribed by the authorities concerned, time-to-time. This includes legal consent of the Allottees as well. These legal measures are to avoid any complaints, disputes with regards to common or special amenities such as recreation, playground, parking, internal roads, swimming pool, club house, gymnasium, etc. All these need to be categorically and unambiguously specified for every project’s phase in each of the applications submitted for a new MahaRERA registration number.

Also Read: Record 3,927 housing projects completed in 2023 Highest Since MahaRERA inception

The post One Stand-alone Project: One MahaRERA Number policy appeared first on Square Feat India.

The effects of GST (Goods and Services Tax) and RERA (Real Estate Regulation and Development) on the home-buying process are two significant government policies that have revolutionized the real estate industry in India. GST aims to establish a standardized and neutral taxation system, while RERA addresses issues such as delays and fraudulent practices in the industry to bring about transparency and better management.

The implementation of GST has had transformative effects on property transactions. Previously, developers used to transfer tax costs to homebuyers, leading to potentially fraudulent activities. However, with GST, all applicable taxes have been replaced by a unified tax system, ensuring clarity and eliminating fraud. The introduction of an Input Tax Credit (ITC) allows for the refund of excess taxes paid and must be passed on to homebuyers.

The current regulations for GST in property transactions depend on factors such as the type of property and its approval under GST/RERA. Affordable housing options attract a GST rate of 1% without ITC, while non-affordable housing has a GST rate of 5% without ITC. There are additional charges based on the construction status, with ready-to-move houses having no additional fees and properties under construction attracting a GST rate of 12% with full ITC.

RERA has had significant implications for property transactions by ensuring transparency and safeguarding the interests of homebuyers. Real estate agents and developers are required to register under RERA, reducing the chances of fraud and delays. Home loans for RERA-approved projects can result in faster approval and lower interest rates. The state RERA’s web portal provides real-time updates on registered projects, enhancing convenience and transparency for property buyers.

Benefits of GST and RERA

Under the GST regime, the tax rate on under-construction projects has been reduced to 12%, resulting in tax equality and improved tax compliance. RERA has established regulations and regulatory authority, enhancing transparency and buyer confidence. The simplified process and reduced logistics costs have benefited both developers and buyers.

For developers, the implementation of GST and RERA has eliminated various taxes and improved the overall situation, although they are subject to a 15% tax on services. For buyers, the introduction of GST and RERA has improved transparency and simplicity in real estate investments.

GST has played a significant role in reducing federal tax barriers, leading to tax neutrality in the real estate sector. Previously, different states had complex tax structures, but GST has standardized taxation across all states, simplifying property registration.

In conclusion, understanding the impacts of GST and RERA empowers individuals to make property purchases with confidence. GST streamlines the taxation system, while RERA ensures transparency and buyer protection, ultimately shaping the home-buying process in India.

Note: The views expressed in this article are that of the author, and do not represent the views of SquareFeatIndia

Also Read: Highest home sales recorded in MMR amongst the top 7 cities in Q3 2022

The post <strong>GST is applicable when a home buyer buys a home- everything you need to know about</strong> appeared first on Square Feat India.

On April 20, the properties of Bhupesh Babu of NK Garden were successfully auctioned in Morbi Gram Panchayat of Panvel area. The proceeds from this auction were recently distributed among the 34 complainants in the case.Rs 31.57 lakh is the highest compensation amount and Rs 3.48 lakh is the lowest amount. Apart from this, 30 out of 34 complainants have been awarded a total of Rs 6 lakh cost towards complaint.

While the base price was Rs 3.72 crore, the auction fetched a bid of Rs 4.82 crore. As a result of which the principal amount of compensation was paid to 34 complainants in this case. This is the first instance of recovery of money from the auction and compensation to the complainants.

There is a possibility that property seizure and alternative auctions will be announced in some more places in the state in the coming time.

MahaRERA has issued warrants worth Rs 22.2 crore in 99 cases for delay and similar matters in 38 projects in Raigad district. Rs 6.50 crore was expected to be recovered from 33 warrants from Bhupeshbabu, the developer of NK Garden in Panvel Tehsil Office area. For this, the Panvel Tehsil Office had seized the properties of survey numbers 93/2/9, 93/3, 93/5, 93/6, 93/9, 93/11 at Morbe and held this auction.

As per the legal provision regarding distribution of the amount recovered in this auction, this amount was distributed through the local revenue system to the homebuyers in this project as per the compensation sanctioned by MahaRERA.

Also Read: 88 Realty Projects approach MahaRERA to cancel their Registration

The post Rs 4.78 crore compensation distributed to 34 Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

The real estate sector in India has been dominated by men for decades, but times have changed. Today, women are almost on par with men in real estate. Currently, 66% of Indian women, according to a recent survey, prefer real estate as an investment. Even before the pandemic, the numbers were on the rise, thanks to woman empowerment and growing awareness of the goldmine that is property investment.

While it’s refreshing to see women take the lead, it is even more delightful that there are multiple benefits for women buying a property. The time is ripe to be a female homeowner as there are several benefits in store; from low interest rates and tax exemptions, to discounts and lower stamp duty charge.

Here are some of the key benefits for women to own a property in India:

Attractive interest rates:

Banks often keep their home loan interest rate low for women borrowers compared to men borrowers. A lower interest rate makes a great impact on Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) and provides significant savings over the longer tenure of the home loan. The rates would differ across banks, with a difference of around 0.25 per cent and  is also applicable when a woman co-applies for the home loan.

Lower rates for Stamp Duty:

A majority of the state government encourages home ownership by women and thus they provide a significant rebate on registration fee/stamp duty if the property is registered in the name of a lady. Home loan benefits for females include lower stamp duty charges by 1-2%. For eg: the State Government of Maharashtra recently announced in their budget that they would give a 1 % rebate on stamp duty for women which would not only encourage a sense of homeownership among women in the state but would also aid them in saving money spent on the registration of properties.

Tax deductions:

To avail of certain tax benefits, women can also become the joint owner of a property along with her spouse. If she has a separate source of income, both can claim tax deductions individually if they opt for the old tax regime. Hence, under Section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, each co-owner can claim a deduction on the principal payment of up to Rs 1.5 lakh. When it comes to interest payments, each co-owner can claim a deduction of up to Rs 2 lakh. Due to their financial awareness and credit consciousness, women borrowers are also less likely to default on the home loan, and they also have better credit scores as compared to men. This enhances their home loan eligibility and opens up more loan repayment options, too.

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY):

PMAY is a game-changer initiative for home buyers. The PMAY makes female co-ownership mandatory for the female head of the family. When it comes to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Low Income Group (LIG) category, the PMAY scheme preference is extended to widows as well as single women.

In summation

It is heartening to see so many women in leadership positions in the real estate industry, which is currently booming and also to see women become homebuyers in greater numbers. No one should hesitate because there are so many advantages for a woman buying a home in India!

Also Read: Maharashtra State Budget 2023-24: Women Homebuyers to benefit

The post Benefits of being a Woman Home Buyer in India appeared first on Square Feat India.

Much against general expectations, the RBI decided to keep the repo rates unchanged at 6.5% today. This is indeed good for the residential real estate market, which faces a tough road ahead amid massive layoffs by large corporates the world over. India is not decoupled from global economic dynamics and their invariable impact on the housing uptake here. The RBI’s decision to keep the repo rates unchanged comes as a welcome respite to homebuyers.

This particularly gives relief to affordable and mid segment homebuyers who feared a possible rate hike today, making property buying via home loans even harder. As is, affordable housing has been under stress since the pandemic. This segment (units priced

But in 2022, out of the total 3,64,880 units sold across the top 7 cities altogether, about 26% were in the affordable category. There has been a further dip in overall sales share in Q1 2023, as well. Out of total 1.14 lakh units sold in the top 7 cities in Q1 2023, affordable housing comprised just 20% share (or. approx. 23,110 units sold).

It bears keeping in mind that after the remarkable performance in Q1 2023, the housing market is now staring at major headwinds with layoffs, rising property prices, etc. which will pose a challenge in the short-term. The respite of home loan rates remaining unchanged is therefore very welcome.

Also Read: CREDAI Urges RBI to Maintain Repo Rate amid Increasing Construction Costs and Rising Housing Prices

The post <em>Unchanged Repo Rates A Boon for the Housing Market</em> appeared first on Square Feat India.