315 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

400 ITR 23Supreme Court of India2018#7174 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57(iv)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 57(iv)section 145bsection 56(2)(viii)section 145a(b)section 45(5)section 10(37)section 145b(1)enhanced compensationcompulsory acquisition

Judgments citing 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the impugned addition. 8.3 That the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has also erred both in law and on fact in not following the binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) PCIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the lea…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the impugned addition. 8.3 That the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has also erred both in law and on fact in not following the binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) PCIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the lea…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the impugned addition. 8.3 That the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has also erred both in law and on fact in not following the binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) PCIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the lea…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the impugned addition. 8.3 That the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has also erred both in law and on fact in not following the binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) PCIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the lea…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the impugned addition. 8.3 That the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has also erred both in law and on fact in not following the binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) PCIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the lea…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the impugned addition. 8.3 That the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has also erred both in law and on fact in not following the binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) PCIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the lea…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the impugned addition. 8.3 That the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has also erred both in law and on fact in not following the binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) PCIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the lea…

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 632/CHANDI/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(37)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 253Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…he aforesaid addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on fact in not following the binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) CIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tаx (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on fact in sustaining the view taken by learned Assessing Officer of making addition by invoking section 56(2)…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1227/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…xman 119/224 ITR 551 (SC)]; Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [(2009) 8 SCC 412/[2009]\n182 Taxman 368/315 ITR 1 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax.\nFaridabad v. Chet Ram (HUF) [(2018) 15 SCC 270/[2017]\n86 taxmann.com 103/251 Taxman 4/400 ITR 23 (SC)]; Commissioner\nof Income Tax, Rajkot v. Govindbhai Mamaiya - [(2014) 16 SCC\n449/[2014] 52 taxmann.com 270/229 Taxman 138/367 ITR 498\n(SC)]; Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 10 v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi\n(HUF) [MANU/DE/2633/2024/[2024] 161 taxmann.com 301\n(HUF) v. Union\nof\nIndia [MANU/PH/3409/2014]/[2016] 65 taxmann.com 160/237 Taxman\…

VEERASWAMY JOTHEESWARAN,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVALLUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1756/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…9 Taxman 119/224 ITR 551 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [(2009) 8 SCC 412/[2009] 182 Taxman 368/315 ITR 1 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax. Faridabad v. Chet Ram (HUF) [(2018) 15 SCC 270/[2017] 86 taxmann.com 103/251 Taxman 4/400 ITR 23 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income Таx, Rajkot v. Govindbhai Mamaiya - [(2014) 16 SCC 449/[2014] 52 taxmann.com 270/229 Taxman 138/367 ITR 498 (SC)]; Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 10 v. Inderjit Singh :- 11 -: Sodhi (HUF) [MANU/DE/2633/2024/[2024] 161 taxmann.com 301 (Delhi)]; Manjet Singh (HUF) v. Union of India [MANU/PH/3409/2014]/2016] 65 tax…

DEVARAYA PILLAI SUBRAMANIAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 56(2)(viii)

…9 Taxтan 119/224 ITR 551 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [(2009) 8 SCC 412/[2009] 182 Taxman 368/315 ITR 1 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax. Faridabad v. Chet Ram (HUF) [(2018) 15 SCC 270/[2017] 86 taxmann.com 103/251 Taxman 4/400 ITR 23 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income Таx, Rajkot v. Govindbhai Mamaiya - [(2014) 16 SCC 449/[2014] 52 taxmann.com 270/229 Taxman 138/367 ITR 498 (SC)]; Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 10 v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) [MANU/DE/2633/2024/[2024] 161 taxmann.com 301 (Delhi)]; Manjet Singh (HUF) v. Union of India [MANU/PH/3409/2014]/2016] 65 taxmann.com…

HARDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SIRSA, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 156Section 249(4)(b)

…foresaid addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on fact in not following the binding judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 B) ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) PCIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on fact in sustaining the view taken by learned Assessing Officer of making addition by invoking section 56…

BHIM SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 255/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57Section 69ASection 80CSection 80D

…the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle pronounced in the case of Ghanshyam [supra] in the following cases: i) CIT Vs. Govind Bhai Mamaiya (2014)367 ITR 498 (SC) ii) CIT Vs. Chet Ram (2018) 400 ITR 23(SC) 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Joginder Singh 217 Taxmann 208 and Gujarat High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikha Bhai Bala 70 Taxmann.com 45 wherein their Lordships have decided that interest u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act is a part…

BHARAT BHUSHAN,KARNAL HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARNAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2715/DEL/2023[218-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 10(37)(i)Section 28

…stands adjudicated in number of cases by the Tribunal. Reference is invited to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- (i) CIT vs. Ghanashyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 498 (SC) (iii) 400 ITR 23 (SC) PCIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) (iv) 302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. (v) CA No 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri. 3. For the sake of ready reference, one such order of the Tribunal in the case of Smt Ramesh Bai vs. ITO, Bhiwani in ITA no. 4193 to 4195/Del/2019 is reproduced herewith:- Bharat Bhushan 1. These…

OPINDER SINGH VIRK,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2971/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year 2011-12 Shri Opinder Singh Virk Vs Income-Tax Officer, Pravesh Kumar Sharma, R/O 493- Ward-2, Karnal. L, Model Town, Karnal. Pan: Aeppv9041P Appellant Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 28Section 45(5)Section 56Section 57

…involved in this matter in a holistic way but the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court shall not be read to have denied the assessee the benefit u/s 10(37) of the Act. 7. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned DR that in CIT vs Chet Ram (HUF), (2018) 400 ITR 23 (SC), CIT vs GovindbhaiMamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 498 (SC) and Smt. PremlataPurshottamPaldiwal vs CIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 317 (Bom), the it was held that interest has to be taxed in the year of receipt and not to be spread over the years on actual basis and the enhanced compensation with interest thereon received under the interim order passed by th…

BALDEV SINGH,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2970/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year 2011-12 Shri Baldev Singh, Vs Income-Tax Officer, R/O 493-L, Model Town, Ward-2, Karnal. Karnal. Pan: Ascps1945A

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 28Section 45(5)Section 56Section 57

…involved in this matter in a holistic way but the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court shall not be read to have denied the assessee the benefit u/s 10(37) of the Act. 7. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned DR that in CIT vs Chet Ram (HUF), (2018) 400 ITR 23 (SC), CIT vs GovindbhaiMamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 498 (SC) and Smt. PremlataPurshottamPaldiwal vs CIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 317 (Bom), the it was held that interest has to be taxed in the year of receipt and not to be spread over the years on actual basis and the enhanced compensation with interest thereon received under the interim order passed by th…