SH. RAMESHWAR DAYAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the interest was received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. If confirmed, it would be treated as a capital receipt.
What were the facts?
The assessee received interest on compensation for agricultural land acquired by state authorities. The assessee claimed this interest was not taxable as it was received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
What were the issues?
Whether interest received on compensation for acquired agricultural land is taxable, depending on whether it was received under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 250(6),Section 56(viii),Section 145A
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.
- CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)363 citing315 ITR 1 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
ORDER आदेश आदेश PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP The present appeal is filed against the order of CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 19.09.2016 relating to assessment year 2013-14 against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:- 1. “That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against law and facts on the file in as much as the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) Assessment Year: 2013-14 was not justified to arbitrarily uphold addition amounting to Rs.63,57,390/- on account of interest on compensation/enhanced Compensation.
2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) was not justified to arbitrarily uphold and misinterpreted of the amendments in section 56(viii) read with section 145A of the Act, which is against the intent and spirit of the law.”
The issue raised in the present appeal is against the chargeability of interest received on compensation receipt on agricultural land acquired by the State authorities.
The Ld.AR for the assessee points out that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC). The Ld.AR for the assessee also pointed out that the interest has been received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short “LAC Act”).
The Ld. DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and pointed out that it is not clear as to whether interest is received under section 28 or under section 34 of the LAC Act.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The land owned by the assessee was acquired by the State authorities against which the assessee was entitled to receive compensation. In addition to the compensation, the assessee also received interest under the LAC Act. The case of the assessee before us is that the interest has been received u/s 28 of the LAC Act; hence same is not taxable in line ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra). However, the Ld.AR for the assessee during the course of hearing was asked to establish the claim of Assessment Year: 2013-14 receipt of interest u/s 28 of LAC Act. The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that the said issue is not in dispute.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) has laid down that under the LAC Act in addition to compensation, interest is also received by the persons. It has further laid down that interest received u/s 28 of the LAC Act is part of compensation and hence, is the capital receipt. However, interest received u/s 34 of the LAC Act is taxable in the hands of the assessee.
In the present set of facts, the claim of the assessee is that interest has been received u/s 28 of the LAC Act. However, the necessary certificate in this regard is not available on record. Accordingly, we deem it fit to restore the limited issue of verification of stand of the assessee that it has received interest on compensation u/s 28 of the LAC Act, back to the file of Assessing Officer, who shall verify the same and if it is so, the same is to be treated as capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. The issue raised in the present appeal is thus decided in favour of the assessee. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal are thus allowed.
More judgments on Section 145A
- M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc… vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), KolkataITA 654/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India… vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), KolkataITA 1931/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- Sudhakar Purushottam Bhalerao, Osmanabad vs ITO Ward 1, LaturITA 2882/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Jasviri Devi, Uttar Pradesh vs ITO Ward 2 (1), MoradabadITA 5108/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Sandeep, Sonipat vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1, SonipatITA 2392/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026