ROHATASH SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 2(3) NOIDA, NOIDA GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1346/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 September 2026AY 2016-173 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, following the principle of Vegetable Products Limited, due to the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling on the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting High Court decisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, received compensation for land acquisition. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and taxed interest on enhanced compensation under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145A(b). The CIT(A) upheld this decision, relying on High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the taxability of interest received on enhanced compensation for land acquisition. The Tribunal considered conflicting High Court judgments and the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(viii),Section 145A(b),Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Adv. & Shri Airik Singla, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Surbendu Thakur, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1346/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ROHTASH SINGH, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, Village Hazratpur Vazidpur, Income Tax Office, Sector 63, Noida Ward 2(3), A-2D, Sector-24, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar 201301, Gautam Budh Nagar 201301, Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh. PAN No.DNSPS6537J Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Adv. & Shri Airik Singla, Adv. Revenue by Shri Surbendu Thakur, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.09.2026 Pronouncement on 01.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 04.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the assessee is seen to be a non-filer who had apparently received some compensation for land acquired on which a TDS of Rs.12,57,076/- was deducted. The Ld. AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 15.03.2019 and reopened the case. The Ld. AO found that the NOIDA Authority had paid interest on enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.12,50,738/-. The Ld. AO brought an amount of Rs.63,27,864/- to tax u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act.

1.2 The aggrieved assessee approached the CIT(A) where also he could not succeed on the basis of finding on pages 10 to 12 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the order in the case of Mahender Pal Narang reported in 423 ITR 13 (P&H) to hold that such interest was taxable. It is also recorded in the impugned order that this principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF), reported in 161 taxmann.com 301. Needless to say, the assessee could not succeed.

1.3 The assessee has now approached the ITAT with as many as seven grounds challenging the action of authorities below.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR argued that while the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court were against the assessee but the Hon’ble Bombay, Gujarat and Kerala High Courts were in favour of the assessee. The Ld. AR clarified regarding the case laws in his favour as under:

i. Rupesh Rashmikant Shah reported in 108 taxmann.com 181 (Bom.) [2019]; ii. Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai reported in 388 ITR 343 (Guj.) [2016]; iii. Anvar Ali Poolakkodan [2025] ITA 32 of 2023 [Hon’ble Kerla High Court].

The Ld. AR argued that since there was no judgment from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, being the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, then 2 the balance of convenience would be in favour of the assessee following the case of Vegetable Products Limited reported in 88 ITR 192 (SC).

2.1 The Ld. DR placed reliance on the cases of Mahender Pal Narang (supra) and Inderjit Sodhi (HUF) (supra) to canvass the point that the issue was covered against the assessee.

3.

We have heard the Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us, including the case laws relied on by either of the sides. We find that indeed there is no guidance on this issue by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and thus, following the case of Vegetable Products Limited (supra), we decide the taxability of the interest income, on enhanced compensation, in assessee’s favour.

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 21.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 3

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viii)

All 364 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →