SWARANJIT KAUR,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(3), MOHALI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is not taxable, following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents. However, the nature of the interest (under Section 28 or 34) needed further examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee received interest on enhanced compensation. The primary issue was whether this interest was taxable.
What were the issues?
The taxability of interest on enhanced compensation received by the assessee, specifically distinguishing between interest received under Section 28 versus Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- 1995) 214 ITR 202 (Mad. HC.). In Moolchand v. CIT17 citing115 ITR 1 · 1978 · HC
आदेश/Order
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.01.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].
The sole issue raised in this appeal is regarding taxability of interest on enhanced compensation received by the assessee. Admittedly, the interest on enhanced compensation covered u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is to be treated as part of the compensation in the light of the decision in Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 115 ITR 1(SC). This matter has also been dealt with and decided in the latest decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.018 in ‘Varinder Singh Vs ACIT’, ITA No. 399/Chd/2012 for
ITA No. 425/Chd/2018- Swaranjit Kaur, Mohali 2
assessment year 2011-12, wherein, it was held by the Tribunal that the
interest received on enhanced compensation is to be treated as part of the
compensation and, as such, was not exigible to taxation. The relevant part
of the finding of the Tribunal (para 6) are reproduced herein under:-
“6. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the assessee. So far as the issue as to the taxability of interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is cornered, the same is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the group of cases with lead case in ‘Shri Satbir Vs. ITO & others’ in ITA Nos. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 vide order dated 9.7.2018, another group of cases with lead case in ‘ITO Vs. Sh. Nachhattar Singh & Others’ in M.A. Nos. 61/Chd/2014 (in ITA Nos. 564/Chd/2010) order dated 7.2.2018 and also in the case of ‘Som Nath, Yamunanagar Vs. ITO’ in ITA No. 552/Chd/2016 order dated 11.7.2018, wherein, the Tribunal after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF)(supra) , and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. UOI’ in CWP No. 15506 of 2013 dated 14.01.2014 and further decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘UOI Vs. Hari Singh and others in Civil appeal No. 1504 of 2017 dated 15.9.2017 and another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF)’ dated 12.9.2017 in Civil appeal No. 13053/2017 has held that that the interest received by an assessee on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is to be treated as part of the compensation and further that the compensation being exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act is not exigible to the tax.”
ITA No. 425/Chd/2018- Swaranjit Kaur, Mohali 3
However, at this stage, the Ld. DR has raised a pointed that it is not
clear that the entire interest was received by the assessee under the
provisions of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act or part of the same is
also received under the provisions of section 34 of the Land Acquisition
Act.
We, therefore, restore this limited aspect for examination as to the
nature of interest received by the assessee to the file of the Assessing
officer. If the same is received as per the provisions of section 28 of the
Act, then, in the light of the decision of the Tribunal referred to above,
the same will not be liable for taxation, however, if the same is found to
be received as per the provisions of 34 of the Act, the Assessing officer
will decide the taxability after hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee on
this issue.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court immediately on completion of hearing on 16.12.2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नपूणा� गु�ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member
Dated : 16.12.2018 “आर.के.”
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
ITA No. 425/Chd/2018- Swaranjit Kaur, Mohali 4
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
More judgments on Section 28
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- The Vijapur Taluka Co-Operative Purchase… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, PatanITA 925/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- ACIT, Circle-4, Patna vs Amit Kumar Singh, PatnaITA 95/PAT/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- DCIT Circle-4, Patna vs Amit Kumar Singh, PatnaITA 88/PAT/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Vishal Oil and Lubricants Co vs The Commissioner of Customs (Import)W.P.(C)-7004/202628 Sept 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026