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 367,154 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)

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

Appeals of the assessees are hereby allowed

ITA 608/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Mohan Singh
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…on the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii) 367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the lear…

Smt. Suresh Rani, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

Appeals of the assessees are hereby allowed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Mohan Singh
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…on the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii) 367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the lear…

Sh. Nand Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

Appeals of the assessees are hereby allowed

ITA 601/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Mohan Singh
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…on the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i) 315 ITR 1(SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii) 367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the lear…

Naransang L.Parmar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2507/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2018AY 2009-10
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 27I(1)(c)Section 28

…I TA N o. 2 5 0 7/ Ah d 2 01 5 Na r a ns a ng L Pa r ma r V s. I TO Ass e ss me n t Y ea r : 2 0 09 - 1 0 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President and Pramod Kumar, Vice President] Assessment Year: 2009-10 Naransang L Parmar .......…………...........Appellant At & PO : Juna Navda, Tal : Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad-380 001 [PAN : AXTPP 3332 L] Vs. Income Tax Officer ............................ Respondent Ward 6(3), Ahmedabad Appearances by: Ankit Talsania, for the appellant Vinod Talwani, for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 30.10.2…

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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

Sh. Baldev Raj, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 612/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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

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

ITA 610/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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

Sh. Ganesh Dass Mehta, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 609/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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

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

ITA 607/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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

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

ITA 605/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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

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

ITA 604/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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

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

ITA 603/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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

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

ITA 653/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)

…ion the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. UOI CWP No. 15506/2013 dated 14.1.2014 and overlooking the following judgments of Apex Court: i)315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (dated 16.7.2009) ii)367 ITR 4 98(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 Union of India and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS v) C.A. No. 18475/2017 Income Tax Officer TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned…

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Dharwad vs. Shri Vinayak Hari Palled, Hubballi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Sree Nandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: None
Section 10(37)Section 14Section 2Section 28Section 56Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 05/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Vinayak Hari Palled, Ward-2(2), Shivanand Nagar, Hubballi. Dharwad. PAN: BJNPP 3407M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sree Nandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 11.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2018 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 10.10.2016 of the…

Late Sh. Virender Singh S/O Sh. Ishwar Singh, Jagadhari vs. DCIT, Jagadhari

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed

ITA 673/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

…amount of interest in the impugned years in the reopened assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. Before the Ld.CIT (Appeals), the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) and contended that as per the ratio laid down in the said decision the interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not partake the character of interest, rather it was a part of compensation of land which was not taxable as per the provisions of section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering th…

Smt. Surjit Kaur, Panchkula vs. ITO, Panchkula

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed

ITA 547/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

…amount of interest in the impugned years in the reopened assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. Before the Ld.CIT (Appeals), the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) and contended that as per the ratio laid down in the said decision the interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not partake the character of interest, rather it was a part of compensation of land which was not taxable as per the provisions of section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering th…

Sh. Amar Nath, Jagadhari vs. DCIT, Yamunanagar

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed

ITA 543/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

…amount of interest in the impugned years in the reopened assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. Before the Ld.CIT (Appeals), the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) and contended that as per the ratio laid down in the said decision the interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not partake the character of interest, rather it was a part of compensation of land which was not taxable as per the provisions of section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering th…