CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF I.T.,FARIDABAD vs. NATHI SINGH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court decided the first question in favour of the revenue, holding that the enhanced compensation and interest received thereon would be taxable in the year of receipt. This was based on the reasoning that Section 45(5)(b) of the Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF), mandates taxation in the year of receipt, irrespective of any pending litigation. The Court also referred to its own decision in CIT v. Bir Singh (HUF) which held that interest under Section 34 awarded by the Collector partakes the character of compensation and is taxable in the year of receipt in view of Section 45(5)(b), and under cash system of accountancy, it falls under Section 56 as 'income from other sources' in the year of receipt. For the second question, since the Tribunal had not decided the issue relating to deductions under Sections 54B and 54F, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed to the extent of the first issue and the second issue was remanded.
What were the facts?
This judgment concerns appeals filed by the revenue against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment year 1998-99. The appeals, ITA No. 47 of 2007 (against Nathi Singh) and ITA No. 50 of 2007 (against Smt. Chhotan), involve common questions of law. The core issue revolves around the taxability of enhanced compensation and interest received against security. The revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision to uphold the CIT(A)'s direction not to treat a percentage of capital gain and interest as income for the year when the law had allegedly changed with the insertion of Section 45(5). Additionally, a procedural issue concerns whether the ITAT erred in not adjudicating the issue of deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer not to treat that percentage of capital gain and interest arising out of payment which is covered by security as income for the year when the law had already been changed by amendment and new section 45(5) was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.1988? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Section 45(5)). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in not adjudicating the issue of deduction under Sections 54B & 54F? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Sections 54B and 54F). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that enhanced compensation and interest thereon released against security should be taxable in the year of receipt, citing Section 45(5)(b) and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC). The revenue also contended that the ITAT failed to adjudicate the deduction claims under Sections 54B and 54F.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 45(5),Section 54B,Section 54F,Section 56,Section 260A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 7.12.2010 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Nathi Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent.
This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 47 and 50 of 2007 as common questions of law are involved therein.
ITA No. 47 of 2007 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “D”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 3945/Del/2001 relating to the assessment year 1998-99. 3. The appeal was admitted for determination of the following substantial questions of law by this Court:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding -2- the order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer not to treat that percentage of capital gain and interest arising out of payment which is covered by security as income for the year when the law had already been changed by amendment and new section 45(5) was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.1988?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in not adjudicating the issue of deduction u/ss 54B & 54F?”
We have heard learned counsel for the revenue.
The point that arises in this appeal is whether the amount of enhanced compensation which was released against security and the interest received thereon would be taxable in the year of receipt.
The similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in ITA No. 209 of 2004 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Bir Singh (HUF) Ballabgarh) decided on 27.10.2010, wherein it was concluded as under:- “(a) that 'income from Business or profession' and 'income from other sources' are ascertain on the basis of system of accountancy followed by the assessee; (b) where assessee is not maintaining books of accounts by adopting any specific method, it shall be treated to be cash system of accountancy; (c) the interest under Section 34 to be awarded by the Collector partakes the characters of compensation -3- and is taxable in the year of receipt in view of Section 45(5)(b) of the Act; and (d) under cash system of accountancy, the element of interest awarded by the Court received on enhanced amount of compensation under Section 28 of the 1894 Act falls for taxation under Section 56 as 'income from other sources' in the year of receipt.”
Further, the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF), [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC) had held that the amount of enhanced compensation received by the assessee would be taxable in the year of receipt in view of insertion of Section 45(5)(b) of the Act irrespective of the pendency of any litigation at the behest of the State in any court of law.
Accordingly, question No.1 is decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is allowed to that extent.
Since the Tribunal has not decided the issue relating to deduction under Sections 54B and 54F of the Act, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for decision in this regard in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 7, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs JUDGE -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 50 of 2007 Date of Decision: 7.12.2010 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Smt. Chhotan ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent.
This appeal is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date recorded in ITA No. 47 of 2007 (Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Faridabad v. Nathi Singh). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 7, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs JUDGE
More judgments on Section 45(5)
- Sudhakar Purushottam Bhalerao, Osmanabad vs ITO Ward 1, LaturITA 2882/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Sunil Kumar, Noida vs Ward 5(2)(4), DelhiITA 6828/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2015-16
- Usha, Charkhi Dadri vs Income Tax Officer, Charkhi DadriITA 6396/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Kalabhai Ragaji Rabari, Banaskantha vs ITO, Ward-1, Palanpur, BanaskanathaITA 1870/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Jai Kanwar, Sonipat, Haryana vs ITO, Ward 1, Sonepat, Sonipat, HaryanaITA 4993/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026