M/S. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1223/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 August 2022AY 2016-1726 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act could not be entertained as a fresh claim before the CIT(A) without it being raised in the return of income. However, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration based on specific provisions of the KIAD Act and RFCTLARR Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee received compensation for compulsory acquisition of his property by KIADB for a metro rail project. He did not claim exemption in his original return but sought it before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the AO's view and also decided on merits that the acquisition did not fall under the RFCTLARR Act for exemption.

What were the issues?

Whether a fresh claim for exemption can be entertained by the CIT(A) if not raised in the original return of income, and whether compensation received under the KIAD Act for a metro project is eligible for exemption under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 96

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-C”, BANGALORE

Before: Shri Chandra Poojari

Hearing: 16.08.2022Pronounced: 16.08.2022

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 01.05.2019 for the assessment year 2016-2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-

“1. The order of learned CIT(Appeals) is erroneous, both on facts and on law.

2.

The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the powers of the CIT(A) are restrictive and that he cannot entertain a fresh claim, which was not raised in the return of income;

3.

The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the compensation received by the appellant from KIADB under KIAD Act cannot be considered as compensation received under RFCTLAAR Act, to claim exemption u/s 96 of t

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 96

All 68 judgments and leading authorities on Section 96 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →