BIJENDRA KUMAR,NOIDA vs. DCIT, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4285/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 November 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation is not taxable, referencing several High Court judgments. The action of the lower authorities in holding this income as taxable was reversed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC relating to AY 2016-17. The appeal concerned the taxability of the interest component of land acquisition compensation.

What were the issues?

Whether interest component of land acquisition compensation is taxable income under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 28,Section 57(iv),Section 56,Section 145A(b)

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, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

Hearing: 19.11.2025Pronounced: 19.11.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064404501(1) dated 26.04.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 369 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

./2025 Bijendra Kumar 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities action assessing the assessee’s interest component of land acquisition compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while invoking section 57(iv) r.w.s. 56 r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act.

5.

Learned Sr. DR representing the department vehemently argued that the instant issue is no more res integra in light of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. CBDT (2020) 423 ITR 13 (P&H) as well as PCIT Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi HUF (2024) 161 taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only.

6.

The assessee on the other hand places strong reliance on Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai vs. ITO (2016) 388 ITR 343 (Guj.), Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. Union of India (2019) 108 taxmann.com 181 (Bom) and Anvar Ali Poolakkodan Vs. ITO (2025) 173 taxmann.com 633 (Ker) holding that such an interest income on enhanced compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not taxable even after the

7.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that no valuable guidance on the instant issue of taxability of interest income on enhanced compensation has come from hon’ble jurisdictional high court at Allahabad. That being the case, we hereby quote CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) to decide the issue in the assessee’s favour in very terms. Both the learned lower authorities’ action holding the assessee’s interest income on enhanced land acquisition compensation as taxable stands reversed therefore.

More judgments on Section 28

All 1,686 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →