Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector

224 ITR 551Supreme Court of India1997#1507 most cited

What is Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector authority for?

Interest received as income on delayed payment of compensation under Sections 28 or 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is a taxable revenue receipt, chargeable to income tax under the head 'income from other sources'.

75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bikram Singh v Land Acquisition Collector · 224 ITR 551 · taxability of interest on delayed compensation · compulsory acquisition · Land Acquisition Act · revenue receipt · income from other sources · Section 56(2)(viii) · Section 194A · Section 2(28A) · Section 145B

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 145b(1)section 56(2)(viii)section 57(iv)section 2(28a)section 145benhanced compensationsection 23(1)section 10(37)section 45(5)compulsory acquisitionsection 145asection 194a

Judgments citing Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector

Sh. Manjeet Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1391/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 2Section 23(1)Section 28Section 4Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…see and held that the interest income as taxable income under the head “income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The ld. CIT (A), relying on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikram Singh & others Vs Land Acquisition Collector 224 ITR 551 and wherein it was held that interest received on compensation/enhanced compensation u/s 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act are revenue receipts. The ratio of the judgment relied upon by the ld. CIT (A) is as under: “The contention that the definition of 'interest' in section 2(28A) is confined only to money-lending business between debtor an…

Sh. Puneet Singh, Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1389/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 2Section 23(1)Section 28Section 4Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…see and held that the interest income as taxable income under the head “income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The ld. CIT (A), relying on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikram Singh & others Vs Land Acquisition Collector 224 ITR 551 and wherein it was held that interest received on compensation/enhanced compensation u/s 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act are revenue receipts. The ratio of the judgment relied upon by the ld. CIT (A) is as under: “The contention that the definition of 'interest' in section 2(28A) is confined only to money-lending business between debtor an…

Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -3, Latur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…n’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory 9 ITA.No.574/PUN/2020 Sh Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur. amendmen…

Sayyad Rafiq Ali Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1326/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…n'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Cou…

Sayyad Maksood Ali Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1325/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…n'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Cou…

Sayyad Atik Ali Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1324/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…n'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Cou…

Sayyad Matin Alli Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1327/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…n'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Cou…

Sayyad Hakeem Ali Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1323/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…n'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Cou…

Bhagwan Vithoba More, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1806/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Bhagwan Vithoba More, The Income Tax Officer At Post Kopergaon, Ward -1, Latur Taluka & Dist. Latur Vs. Pan : Azvpm7554P

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 10(37)Section 144Section 145ASection 147Section 23Section 23(2)Section 28Section 34Section 45(5)Section 56(2)(viii)

…8. On a careful consideration to the submissions made by the assessee and the facts of this case I find that this case is squarely covered by the decision in 3 ITA No. 1806/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2010-11 the case of Bikram Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector [1997] 224 ITR 551 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held : “7. Relying upon these three provisions, it is contended that the definition of ‘interest’ is confined only to money-lending business between debtor and the creditor and if the creditor receives any amount by way of interest from the debtor, it is in the nature of a receipt of income on a charge paid in resp…

Madhav Pandharinath Kande, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2584/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Madhav Pandharinath The Income Tax Officer Kande Ward -3 Vs. A/P Dhanora, Tal. Ahmedpur Latur Latur 413515 Pan – Cbwpp1670A Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Bharat Shah Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2013-14 Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A) 2, Aurangabad Dated 04.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit (A)-2/Set Aside/Pn/66/2011-12.755 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(2)Section 28Section 34Section 45Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Madhav Pandharinath The Income Tax Officer Kande Ward -3 Vs. A/P Dhanora, Tal. Ahmedpur Latur Latur 413515 PAN – CBWPP1670A Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Bharat Shah Respondent by: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, JM This assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is against the order of the CIT(A) 2, Aurangabad dated 04.07.2017 passed in case No. PN/CIT (A)-2/Set aside/PN/66/2011-12.755 involving proc…

Smt. Urmila Garg, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1183/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 96

…the case of Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 151. 2. Three judges bench decision of the Apex Court in T. N. Govindaraju Chetty V CIT (1967) 66 ITR 465. 3. Three Judges Bench decision of Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551. In all the above cases the Apex Court has held that interest u/s 28 is a revenue receipt. SLP filed was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order C. No. 34642 of 2014 dated 18.12.2014 ordering as under:- "Heard Ld. Counsel for the petition and perused the relevant material. We don not find any legal and valid grounds for interference. The Speci…

Shri Satish Kumar, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1182/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 96

…the case of Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 151. 2. Three judges bench decision of the Apex Court in T. N. Govindaraju Chetty V CIT (1967) 66 ITR 465. 3. Three Judges Bench decision of Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551. In all the above cases the Apex Court has held that interest u/s 28 is a revenue receipt. SLP filed was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order C. No. 34642 of 2014 dated 18.12.2014 ordering as under:- "Heard Ld. Counsel for the petition and perused the relevant material. We don not find any legal and valid grounds for interference. The Speci…

Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-50(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8808/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kr. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 23(1)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…Act. 2.1 That while sustaining the aforesaid addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erroneously sustained the addition relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bikram Singh VS Land Acquisition Collectors reported in 224 ITR 551 overlooking the following binding judgments of Apex Court: 1) 315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii) 367 ITR 498(SC) CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (dated 4.9.2014) iii) C.A. No, 13053/2017 CIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) (dated 12.9.2017) iv) C.A. No. 15041/2017 UOI vs. Hari Singh and ors. (dated 15.9.2017) v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 ITO v…

Mohan Rangrao More, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1807/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mohan Rangrao More, At Post : Kopegaon, Taluka & Dist. Latur. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Azvpm2227K बनाम / V/S. Ito, ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Latur

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Netke
Section 148Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act to be brought to tax in terms of section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in paras 8 to 12. The CIT(A) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikram Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector (1997) 224 ITR 551 (SC) has upheld the order of AO. Considering the settled nature of the issue, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of assessee and does not call for interference from our side. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced…

Sh. Nitya Nand, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6508/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 28Section 44ASection 56(2)(viii)Section 89

…sed. ” The expression 'interest' occurring in subsection (28A) of Section 2 of the Act widens the scope of the term 'interest' for the purposes of the Act. 14. Another three Judges bench of the Apex Court in Bikrnm Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551 following Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) and taking into consideration definition of “interest” in Section 2(2SA) of the Act had recorded that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. I/ was held as under:- "The controversy is no longer res Integra. This question was considered elaborately by this Court i…

Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 597/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 28

…of Section 56 sub-section (2) sub-clause (viii), 57(iv)and Section 145A(b) of the Act and in view of the larger Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Shamlal Narula Vs CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151, Bikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector (1997) 224 ITR 551 and Sunder Vs Union of India JT 2001 (8) SC 130 (Constitution Bench) which had held that interest u/s 28 was akin to interest u/s 34 and did not form part of the compensation but was taxable as revenue receipt. The ld. Pr. CIT held that these decisions had been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Manjit Singh (supra) whil…

Sh. Balbir Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 652/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…elay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. As against the above, contrary decisions were held by the Apex Court in Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 151 (three Judges Bench), Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551 (three Judges Bench), Sunder vs. Union of India JT 2001 (8) SC 130 (Constitution Bench) and State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh JT 2011 (2) SC 393 as observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjet Singh vs. Union of India & Other, CWP No. 15506 of 2013 dated 14.01.2014. The three Judges Bench Hon'…

Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 651/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…elay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. As against the above, contrary decisions were held by the Apex Court in Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 151 (three Judges Bench), Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551 (three Judges Bench), Sunder vs. Union of India JT 2001 (8) SC 130 (Constitution Bench) and State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh JT 2011 (2) SC 393 as observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjet Singh vs. Union of India & Other, CWP No. 15506 of 2013 dated 14.01.2014. The three Judges Bench Hon'…

Sh. Lakhvinder Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 649/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…elay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. As against the above, contrary decisions were held by the Apex Court in Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 151 (three Judges Bench), Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551 (three Judges Bench), Sunder vs. Union of India JT 2001 (8) SC 130 (Constitution Bench) and State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh JT 2011 (2) SC 393 as observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjet Singh vs. Union of India & Other, CWP No. 15506 of 2013 dated 14.01.2014. The three Judges Bench Hon'…

Sh. Balwinder Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 648/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…elay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. As against the above, contrary decisions were held by the Apex Court in Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 151 (three Judges Bench), Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551 (three Judges Bench), Sunder vs. Union of India JT 2001 (8) SC 130 (Constitution Bench) and State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh JT 2011 (2) SC 393 as observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjet Singh vs. Union of India & Other, CWP No. 15506 of 2013 dated 14.01.2014. The three Judges Bench Hon'…

Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector (224 ITR 551) — Cited in 75 Judgments | BharatTax