DR. SHAMLAL NARULA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB

CIVIL APPEAL No. 503/1963Supreme Court[1964] 7 S.C.R. 66809 April 1964Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dr. Shamlal Narula, managed a Hindu undivided family whose land was acquired by the Patiala State Government. An award was made on September 30, 1955, resulting in the assessee receiving Rs. 2,81,822/- on December 1, 1955, which included Rs. 48,660/- as interest up to the award date. For the assessment year 1956-57, the Income-tax Officer included this interest in the total income, deeming it a revenue receipt. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, excluded the interest, considering it a capital receipt. The Commissioner of Income-tax referred the matter to the Punjab High Court, which held the interest to be a revenue receipt liable to tax. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the statutory interest payable under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not compensation for being deprived of the right to possession of the acquired land. Instead, it is compensation for the delayed payment of the compensation amount, representing the profit the owner might have made or the loss suffered due to not having the use of the money. The Court reasoned that once possession is taken, title vests in the Government, and the owner loses the right to retain possession. Therefore, the interest cannot be considered damages or compensation for the loss of this right. The Court overruled the decisions in Behari Lal Bhargava v. Commissioner of Income-tax and P. V. Kurien v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, and approved decisions in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. CT. BM. N. Narayanan Chettiar and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa v. Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh. The Court distinguished Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission and Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichinopoly v. Venkatarama Ayyar, as in those cases, title had not passed when possession was taken. Consequently, the interest is a revenue receipt liable to tax. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the sum of Rs. 48,660/-, representing interest paid under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and included in the award, is a capital receipt not liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: (i) The interest received was compensation for being deprived of the right to possession of the property, thus a capital receipt. (ii) Even if interest is generally revenue, in cases where possession is taken before the award, it takes the character of compensation for loss of the right to possession, making it a capital receipt. Revenue's contention: The High Court's order holding the interest as a revenue receipt liable to tax should be sustained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 34,Section 66(1),Section 3,Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1964 .April 9 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] DR. SHAMLAL NARULA v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB (K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.J Income Tax-Land acquired-Award made. by Collector- Interest on compensation awarded-If interest amounted to a part of compensation-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 o.f 1922), ss. 3, 4-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s.

34.

The State acquired the land of the appellant. Tne Collector made an award under the Land Acquisition Act as a result of which the appellant received Rs. 2,81,822/c, which included a sum of Rs. 48,660/- as interest upto the date of the award. The Income-tax Officer included Rs. 48,660/- (the said interest) in the total income of the appellant on the ground that the said amount was not a capital receipt. The matter went upto the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal excluded the said interest from the total income of the assessee (appellant) on the ground that it was a capital receipt. On a reference the High Court held that the said interest was not a capital but a revenue receipt and as such liable to tax under the Indian In- come-tax Act. The High Court granted a certificate to the ap- pella

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 34

All 275 judgments and leading authorities on Section 34 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →