How many judgments cite CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)?

363 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 56(2)(viii), Section 57(iv), Section 10(37), Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 1961.

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 263 Section 1961 Section 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 145b section 145a(b)section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

Uma Shankar Sitani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2831/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Gobind Ram Kesarwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 194ASection 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…2010- 11, order dated 02.02.2016; ii) Decision of the Delhi Bench, SMC-1, in ITA No.5206/Del/2017, for AY 2014-15 in the case Narender Kumar vs. ITO, order dated 12.04.2021; and 5 iii) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), 315 ITR 1 (SC). 6.1 He, accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the details furnished and allow the claim of the assessee. 7. The ld. DR, while supporting the order of the CIT(A), drew the attention of the Bench to the findings of the CIT(A) that the assessee could not explai…

Jasper Auto Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 705/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 0196P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 50BSection 5O

…nafter deducting the liability of each of the partners, the High Court has rightly held that the amount received by them is the value of net asset of the firm which would attract capital gain. Scope of section 45 was explained in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 1/182 Taxman 368 (SC) wherein the Court stated that capital gains under section 45 are not income accruing from day-to-day. It is deemed income which arises at a fixed point of time, viz. on the date of transfer. [Para 27] On applying the said legal principle to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the partnership firm had dissolved and th…

Bhule Ram Sharma, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7085/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7085/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Bhule Ram Sharma, Vs Acit, Village-Nagla Charan Das, Po-Nepz, Circle-1, Phase-Ii, Noida, U.P.-201305 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Asrps4421C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 145ASection 194ASection 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57Section 96

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 7085/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Bhule Ram Sharma, Vs ACIT, Village-Nagla Charan Das, PO-NEPZ, Circle-1, Phase-II, Noida, U.P.-201305 Noida (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ASRPS4421C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I,…

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

…d Acquisition Act 1894 Act is in the nature of enhanced compensation and therefore exempt u/s 13(37). Or Is it the nature of interest and therefore taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) rws 57(iv) and 145A(b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Ghansham (HUF) 315 ITR 1 held that interest paid on the excess amount, u/s 28 of 1894 Act, is a part of enhanced compensation. However, after this order the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta, Manjeet Singh Vs Union of India 2016 237 taxmann 116 (P & H) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the…

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

Nariender Kumar, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Fatehabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5206/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 2(24)Section 28Section 45Section 56(2)(viii)

…e grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. It has been held by Honble Supreme Court in case of CIT v/s Ghanshyyam Dass HUF that interest awarded u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is a capital receipt. Honble Apex Court in t he case of CIT Vrs Ghanshyam HUF(2009) 315 ITR 1 has held that Interest awarded u/s 28 o f Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is nothing but an accretion to the value of compensation and hence it is part and parcel of compensation. Thus taxability of such interest is of Capital nature an d should be included to Consideration received for the purpose of computation of capital gain u/s 45 of Income Tax Act…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143Section 4

…xamined the nature of interest awarded to a person in terms of Section 28 of the LA Act from taxation point of view whether it will form part of the enhanced compensation, i.e. capital receipt or it is a revenue receipt in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), 315 ITR 1 (SC). Having regard to the purpose of Section 28 of the LA Act, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that the amount allowed u/s 28 of the LA Act under the name of interest is basically not an interest but it is part of the enhanced compensation and would be liable for capital gain tax. 10.2 In the written submissions, the Revenue has relied upon th…

ACIT Corporate Circle-6(2), Chennai vs. S V Global Mill Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 2684/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2684/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Acit, M/S. Sv Global Mill Ltd., Corporate Circle 6(2), V. New No.5/1, Old No.3/1, 6Th Cross Street, Cit Colony, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aaocs2500E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Suresh Periasamy,Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2021

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Periasamy,JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA

Section 10(37)Section 28Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

…ssessee that interest received form part of compensation and compensation is exempt u/s.10(37) of the IT Act is misplaced. The AO has also distinguished the case law relied upon by the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyamdas, 315 ITR 1, wherein the court observed that interest 4 I.T.A. No.2684/CHNY/2019 paid u/s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is a part of enhanced value of the land on the ground that said judgement was delivered on 16th July, 2009, whereas the Finance No.2 Act, 2009 has amended the provisions of Section 56(2) to bring to tax intere…

ITO Ward-3, Ambala vs. Sshri Lakshmi Chander Gupta(HUF), Ambala Cantt

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 68/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 68/Chd/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Ito, बनाम Shri Lakshmi Chander Gupta ('Huf'), Ward-3, 5368, Nicholson Road, Ambala Ambalacantt.

For Appellant: ShriVineetKrishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 148Section 2Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A”,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRIR.L NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos. 68/CHD/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The ITO, बनाम Shri Lakshmi Chander Gupta ('HUF'), Ward-3, 5368, Nicholson Road, Ambala AmbalaCantt. "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAAHL4804P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing through video Conferencing िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : ShriVineetKrishan, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.12.2020 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश…

Ram Kishan, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-60(5), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5391/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Ram Kishan, Vs. Ito, C/O. Jain Khandewal & Co., 510, Ward-60(5), New Delhi House, 27, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Ahapc1442P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 133Section 145ASection 194LSection 28Section 57

…ejecting the contention of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 24207223/- having been received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same is not taxable as not being in the nature of interest as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam HUF 315 ITR 1. 4. The addition has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) misinterpreting the various judicial pronouncements given by various High Courts.” 3. The only issue in this appeal is whether interest received on enhanced compensation of Rs 24,207,223 received by the assessee u/s 28 of the land acquisition act is chargeable to tax or not. 4. The assessee is an…

Shri Mahinder (Individual), Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

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

ITA 6344/DEL/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Mahinder (Individual), Vs. Ito, C/O. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Ward-Ii(4), Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bqtps5341E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 34Section 4Section 6

…1894, hence, it was assessable under the head 'Income From Other Sources' and not as a part of enhanced compensation under the head 'Long Term Capital Gains' as done in the impugned assessment order. Judgment dated 16/07/2009 in the case of GHANSHYAM - [2009] 315 ITR 1 [SUPREME COURT] 3. THAT without prejudice to the above, the entire interest amount being not earned in the previous year corresponding to the present assessment year 2000-01 cannot be charged to tax in the present period. Statutory interest u/s. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 accrues from year to year and is taxable in the respective assessme…

Dharmvir, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Gurugram

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

ITA 836/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-14

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 145Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…that the assessment order is bad. On merits he argued that the interest received on the enhanced compensation partakes the character of the value of the agricultural property in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam 315 ITR 1 (SC) and union of India vs. Hari Singh 302 CTR 458 (SC) and in view of the fact that the property acquired happens to be an agricultural property any income chargeable under the had “capital gains” arising from the transfer of agricultural land shall not be included in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year. 8. Insofar as…

Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6254/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.6254/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Rameshwar Dayal, House No.369, Vpo Manesar, Gurgaon. .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Avspd0656Q Vs The Ito, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Ward-3(4), Gurgaon. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020 आदेश आदेश / 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’).

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250(6)Section 28Section 34Section 56

…est received on compensation receipt on agricultural land acquired by the State authorities. 4. 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”). 5. 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…

Bhaguram Pandurang Komatwad, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

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

ITA 1723/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1723/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bhaguram Pandurang Komatwad, At Post Harangal (Bk), Taluka & Dist. Latur-413531. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Ahppk5689R बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Latur. Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Aurangabad Dated 01.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1) The Ld. Ao Erred In Treating The Amount Of Rs.3,10,33,961/- Received By Me U/S 28 Of Land Acquisition Act 1984, As Interest Instead Of Part & Parcel Of Consideration. 1.1) As The Prime Asset Does Not Fall Under The Category Of Capital Asset, The Ld. Ao (As Well As Ld. Cit(A)) Ought Not To Have Levied Tax On Amount Received By Me U/S 28 Of Land Acquisition Act 1984. 2) The Ld Ao Erred (Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming) In Taxing The Income Which Was Effectively Not Received By The Me. 3) The Assessee Craves The Liberty To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Or To Take Any Fresh Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.” The Core Issue Relates To The Taxation Of The Sum Of Rs.3,10,33,961/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 23Section 28Section 34Section 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1723/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bhaguram Pandurang Komatwad, At Post Harangal (BK), Taluka & Dist. Latur-413531. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : AHPPK5689R बनाम / V/s. ITO, Ward-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Latur. Assessee by : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 04.03.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2020 आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM…

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

…oner 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. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri (dated 10.11.2017) 2.2 That various adverse fin…

Sumesh Kumar, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Fatehabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5207/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishisumesh Kumar Vs Ito H. O. 110/6, Patel Nagar, Tohana, Ward-2 Fatehabad, Haryana. Fatehabad, Haryana Adepk4697A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(37)Section 147Section 28Section 45

…grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v/s Ghanshyyam Dass HUF that interest awarded u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is a capital receipt. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Ghanshyam HUF(2009) 315 ITR 1 has held that Interest awarded u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is nothing but an accretion to the value of compensation and hence it is part and parcel of compensation. Thus taxability of such interest is of Capital nature an d should be included to Consideration received for the purpose of computation of capital gain u/s 45 of Income Tax Act,…

Bhim Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5654/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2003-04]

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 282

…and yet, he is questioning the taxability of interest on receipt basis. 7. In so far as taxability of compensation on land acquisition is concerned, the quarrel has been settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghansyam Das [HUF] 315 ITR 1, and in so far as the quarrel in respect of taxability of interest is concerned, the same has been settled by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Prakash Kaur 330 ITR 332. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under: “In case, the assessee was following mercantile/accrual basis, the same would be discer…

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

…s)-I, Gurgaon in [short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14 raising following grounds: “1. The CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts while not accepting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Ghanshyom HUF (315 ITR 1) that the interest 2 Rs.83,68,370/- awarded should not be taxable at all being integral part of compensation to the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. 2. The CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts while not considering interest income being integral part of enhanced compensation and eligible to exemption since…

Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gadag

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 199Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant PAN AVUPV2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 27.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2020 O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, J.M. : The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Inco…

Shri Pal Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-5(5), Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 327/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Sudershan, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 28Section 34

…eveals that the Ld. CIT(A) has specifically mentioned that the assessee had received the aforesaid interest as interest on enhanced compensation. It is settled that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of “CIT v Ghanshyam 'HUF' 315 ITR 1 (SC), ‘CIT vs Hari Singh and Ors’ in Civil appeal No. 15041 of 2017 vide order dated 15.9.2017 and also the decision of the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal dated 17.7.2018 in ‘Som Nath v ITO’ ITA No.552/Chd/2016, the interest paid on the excess amount u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is part of enhanced value of the land and as…