AKHILESH BANSAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON
What were the facts?
The assessee received enhanced compensation and interest for compulsory acquisition of land. The assessee claimed exemption arguing the land was rural agricultural land and not a capital asset. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated both the enhanced compensation and interest as taxable.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the land was rural agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed distance from municipal limits, thus not a capital asset. Consequently, the enhanced compensation and the interest awarded were not taxable.
What were the issues?
Whether enhanced compensation and interest on compulsory acquisition of land are taxable when the land is not considered a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 2(14)(iii),Section 45(5),Section 10(37),Section 28,Section 56(2)(viii),Section 57(iv),Section 145A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 02.01.2026 for the AY 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are, in the year under consideration, the assessee received enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.2,15,77,773/- together with interest of Rs.2,23,78,473/- consequent to compulsory acquisition of land situated in Village Badha, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurugram by 2 HUDA. The land was originally purchased in the year 2007. The assessee claimed the enhanced compensation and damages in the form of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as exempt on the ground that the land acquire
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 2(14)(iii)
- Pramod Dwivedi, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-1(2), RaipurITA 597/RPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Smt. Sudesh, Meerut vs Itd, MeerutITA 6637/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Mithlesh Sharma, Jaipur vs ITO WD 1(4), JaipurITA 1792/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Sradhavathi Yalamanchali, Hyderabad vs ITO., Ward-8(1), HyderabadITA 1197/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
- Mahender Reddy Patnam, Banjara Hills vs Income Tax Officer, Circle13(1), HyderabadITA 1354/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswa Nath Mondal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 8 Oct 2026
- M/S Vibrations And Ors. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Chandni Chawk And Princep Street Charge And Ors.Calcutta · 8 Oct 2026
- Sheela Foam Limited And Anr vs. The Deputy Commissioner State Tax Shibpur Charge And OrsCalcutta · 8 Oct 2026
- Mihir Kumar Biswas vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Krishnanagar Charge And Ors.Calcutta · 8 Oct 2026
- Vasu Chauhan vs. State Of UttarakhandUttarakhand · 8 Oct 2026