CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2009#207 most cited

What is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) authority for?

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

363

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ghanshyam HUF · Section 28 Land Acquisition Act · enhanced compensation · compulsory acquisition · interest income taxability · capital gains · Section 10(37) Income Tax Act · Section 45(5) Income Tax Act · Section 56(2)(viii) Income Tax Act · agricultural land acquisition

Also reported as

8 SCC 412182 Taxmann 368

Sections most often in play

Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57(iv)Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 1961Section 45(5)Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 155(16)section 45(5)(c)section 145b(1)section 45(5)(b)section 23(1a)section 145bsection 145a(b)section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

Virender Rathee, Bahadurgarh vs. ITO Ward-5, Rohtak

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

ITA 693/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargvirender Rathee, Vs. Ito, 7, Vishwa, Jatwara Mohalla, Ward-5, District Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Rohtak Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Akrpr2303Q

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Chhikara, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 250Section 28Section 45(5)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Member Virender Rathee, Vs. ITO, 7, Vishwa, Jatwara Mohalla, Ward-5, district Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Rohtak Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AKRPR2303Q Assessee by : Shri Pawan Chhikara, CA Revenue by: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 07/07/2023 O R D E R PER C. M. GARG, J. M.: 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 19.01.2023 for AY 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of a…

Nitin Kumar, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Dhurav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 28Section 56

…er amendment u/s 56 was also made to provide that such income shall be taxable as income from other sources in the year in which it is received. However such amendment was not in respect to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Ghanshyam HUF 315 ITR 1. Despite the above changes made u/s 14 5A and u/s 56 (2) with effect from 1 June 2010, so as to tax the interest on compensation or enhanced compensation as income from other sources u/s 56 in the year of receipts, the judicial precedents held that the interest awarded to landowners u/s 28 of the land acquisition act, 1894 on enhanced compensation…

The Baranagar Jute Factory Plc, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

ITA 1149/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1149/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Baranagar Jute Factory Plc Principal Cit-1, Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aabct0134C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri G.H. Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 28/03/2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Through The Various Grounds Of Appeal. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dt. 31/03/2016. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Upon Perusal Of The Assessment Records, Observed That The Assessing Officer Has Not Examined The Four Issues Which Were Discussed By The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Revisionary Order Which Are Extracted Below:- “2. On A Perusal Of The Assessment Record Of The Assessee, It Was Observed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G.H. Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1149/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Baranagar Jute Factory PLC Principal CIT-1, Kolkata C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213, 2nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [PAN : AABCT0134C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue by : Shri G.H. Sema, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Prono…

Sh. Kesar Lal Bairwa, A-24, Varun Colony, Mandara Stand, New Sanganer Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 28Section 3Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…22.05.1982 to 08.10.2015 is a statutory interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and is exempt under section 10(37) of the Act. In this regard, the ld. A/R relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), 315 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it has been held as under :- “ 24. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid on the excess amount under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 depends upon a claim by the person whose land is acquired whereas interest under section 34 is for delay in making payment. This vital difference needs to…

Anvar Ali Poolakkodan, Malappuram vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Tirur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 614/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Anvar Ali Poolakkodan, The Income Tax Poolakkodan House, Officer, Randathani (Po), Ward – 1 & Tps, Malappuram District – Tirur. 676 510. Vs. Pan: Bctpp4669J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K Kittunair, Advocate : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22.03.2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri K Kittunair, Advocate
Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 28Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Anvar Ali Poolakkodan, The Income Tax Poolakkodan House, Officer, Randathani (PO), Ward – 1 & TPS, Malappuram District – Tirur. 676 510. Vs. PAN: BCTPP4669J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K Kittunair, Advocate : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue by AR Date of Hearing : 11-01-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30-03-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 22.03.2022 passed by NFAC, De…

Late Smt. Shanti Devi, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5074/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 5074/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) Ashwani Kumar, Legal Heir Cit, Of Late Smt. Shanti Devi, Vs. Hissar, 14, Urban Estate-Ii, Haryana. Hissar, Haryana. ( Respondent ) Pan No. Anpmd9735C ( Appellant )

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, [CIT] - D. R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

…erest of compensation was not settled as on the 3 Ashwani Kumar, L.H. Smt. Shanti Devi said date. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of CIT v. Ghanshyam Dass(HUF) reported in (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) came to be passed on 16.07.2009 wherein, it has been held that the interest awarded under the Land Acquisition Act is not taxable. The assessee filed application u/s 154 requesting that intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act may be amended by following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam HUF (supra). The AO allowed the ap…

ITO Ward - 2, Hisar vs. Hari Singh Saini, Hisar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1539/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kuldip Khera, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 14SSection 155(16)Section 28Section 4Section 45(5)Section 45(5)(c)Section 56(2)(viii)

…Gujarat High Court in case of M.B. Ballabhai 70 Taxmann.com 45, 2016 as the same was applicable to the facts of this case. In its decision Hon'ble Gujrat High Court had followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ghanshyam HUF, 2009, 182 Taxmann 368, wherein it was held that interest ujs 28 of LAC Act, 1894 is part of compensation amount whereas interest u/s 34 is only for delay in making payment after the compensation is determined. Interest u/s 28 is the part of enhanced value of land which is not the case in the matter of interest u/ s 34. Thus it was held by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…after conducting detailed enquiry and examination on the issue. In this context it was submitted that the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is allowed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1(SC) and CIT-1, Gurgaon decision in case of co-owner Ashok Kumar Dhingra for Assessment Year 2016-17. Secondly it was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that there two views possible view beneficial to assessee to be preferred. 7. The ld Revisional Authority however, distinguished the law and citation relied on behalf of the assessee. It obser…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…after conducting detailed enquiry and examination on the issue. In this context it was submitted that the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is allowed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1(SC) and CIT-1, Gurgaon decision in case of co-owner Ashok Kumar Dhingra for Assessment Year 2016-17. Secondly it was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that there two views possible view beneficial to assessee to be preferred. 7. The ld Revisional Authority however, distinguished the law and citation relied on behalf of the assessee. It obser…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…after conducting detailed enquiry and examination on the issue. In this context it was submitted that the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is allowed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1(SC) and CIT-1, Gurgaon decision in case of co-owner Ashok Kumar Dhingra for Assessment Year 2016-17. Secondly it was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that there two views possible view beneficial to assessee to be preferred. 7. The ld Revisional Authority however, distinguished the law and citation relied on behalf of the assessee. It obser…

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)

…Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 7. During the arguments before us, the ld. AR argued that the issue before us stands covered by the orders of the higher Courts, Coordinate Benches mentioned under: Supreme Court  CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) (dated 16.7.2009)  CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya 367 ITR 498(SC) (dated 4.9.2014)  CIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) in C.A. No. 13053/2017 (dated 12.9.2017)  UOI vs. Hari Singh and ors. In C.A. No. 15041/2017 (dated 15.9.2017)  ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri in C.A. No. 18475/2017 (dated 10.11.2017) Punjab & Haryana  Risal Singh Vs Union of India 32…

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)

…Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 7. During the arguments before us, the ld. AR argued that the issue before us stands covered by the orders of the higher Courts, Coordinate Benches mentioned under: Supreme Court  CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) (dated 16.7.2009)  CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya 367 ITR 498(SC) (dated 4.9.2014)  CIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) in C.A. No. 13053/2017 (dated 12.9.2017)  UOI vs. Hari Singh and ors. In C.A. No. 15041/2017 (dated 15.9.2017)  ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri in C.A. No. 18475/2017 (dated 10.11.2017) Punjab & Haryana  Risal Singh Vs Union of India 32…

Sana Shah, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panipat

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1702/DEL/2022[2018=-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasana Shah, Vs. Ito, 744-745, Model Town, Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bopps2855R

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi S. Mann, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 28Section 5Section 54(4)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…scrutiny it was found that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Hari Singh (Civil Appeal No. 15041/2017 order dated 15th September 2017) and CIT V. Ghanshyam Dass & Ors.: [315 ITR 1(SC)] with regard to interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The assessee had submitted a letter from District Revenue Officer where it was stated that in total an amount of Rs. 8,25,64,962/- was paid to the assessee which included interest of Rs. 5,42,98,691/- after deducting TDS of Rs. 54,29,869/- and the total sum was paid u/s…

Mulakh Raj Mehta & Sons (HUF), Hisar vs. ITO Ward-2, Hisar

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

ITA 2197/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28Section 56

…bmitted that the interest on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act cannot be added, the addition made by the A.O. which was confirmed by the CIT(A) is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam 315 ITR 1 (S.C). The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the 4 ITA. 2197/Del/2019 Mulakh Raj Mehta, Hisar authorities have erroneously treated interest awarded u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as interest received u/s 56 of the Act. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities. 8. We have heard the parties, perused the mate…

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)

…at the land itself was agricultural. To buttress the contention that interest u/s 28 of the LAA is a part of compensation and hence not chargeable to tax, the ld. AR chiefly relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) before the Tribunal in which it has been held that interest u/s.28 under The Land Acquisition Act, is to be taxed as part of consideration on receipt basis. This judgment was delivered on 16-07-2009. The Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01-04-2010 inserted clause (viii) to section 56(2) providing that: “income by way of interest received on com…

Piyushkumar P Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1700/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1700/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Piyushkumar P Patel Vs. ITO 1/137, At Tulsigam, Ward-1(3)(2), Timba Road, Vachhesar, Ahmedabad Savli, Vadodara-387001 [PAN No.BCNPP0982L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Divatia, Advocate Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Sharma Date of Hearing 21.09.2022 31.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-5, Vadodara for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The grounds o…

Shivkant Nagappa Lasune, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officeer, Ward -3, Latur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 285/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.285/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shivkant Nagappa Lasune, Mahadeo Galli, Ahmedpur, Latur – 413 515 .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Adupl0156D बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani
Section 10(37)Section 144Section 28Section 3Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)

…sessee’s behest also goes against CIT(A) detailed discussion wherein he has already held that interest received under section 28 of the land acquisition Act 1894 forms part of the enhanced compensation or consideration in light of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) 2009 315 ITR 1 (SC) and therefore entitled for section 3 A.Y. : 2013-14 Shivkant Nagappa Lasune, , 10(37) relief. The assessee has succeeded in his corresponding arguments in para 18 of the CIT(A) detailed discussion. 5. Coming to the assessee’s interest income covered u/s.34 of the land acquisition Act, we note that the very judicial precedent hereinabove has…

Chander Kalan, Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 1619/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms Ishita Farsaiya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 28Section 45Section 56

…er amendment u/s 56 was also made to provide that such income shall be taxable as income from other sources in the year in which it is received. However such amendment was not in respect to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Ghanshyam HUF 315 ITR 1. Despite the above changes made u/s 14 5A and u/s 56 (2) with effect from 1 June 2010, so as to tax the interest on compensation or enhanced compensation as income from other sources u/s 56 in the year of receipts, the judicial precedents held that the interest awarded to landowners u/s 28 of the land acquisition act, 1894 on enhanced compensation…

Dinesh Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-53(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 9632/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Sharma, Vs. Ito, 389, Masjit Moth, Ward-53(5), Ndse-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aarps5040F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Sikka, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sikka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 28

…er amendment u/s 56 was also made to provide that such income shall be taxable as income from other sources in the year in which it is received. However such amendment was not in respect to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Ghanshyam HUF 315 ITR 1. Despite the above changes made u/s 14 5A and u/s 56 (2) with effect from 1 June 2010, so as to tax the interest on compensation or enhanced compensation as income from other sources u/s 56 in the year of receipts, the judicial precedents held that the interest awarded to landowners u/s 28 of the land acquisition act, 1894 on enhanced compensation…

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

…ved is indeed under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act or not and the exact amount thereof, and if so, allow the claim of the assessee by keeping in view of the ratio of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1. 8. Before us, the ld. DR relied on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 9. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that though the 10 I.T.A. No. 302/Chny/20 assessee has claimed 50% of the interest before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer should have advised…