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)

Kharak Singh, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…n of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/- which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- which was part of enhanced compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. AO who passed the impugned assessment order dated 22.01.2021 without making any addition. The assessment was completed after carrying out proper enquiries which he ought to have carried out in res…

Kharak Singh, Noida vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…n of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/- which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- which was part of enhanced compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. AO who passed the impugned assessment order dated 22.01.2021 without making any addition. The assessment was completed after carrying out proper enquiries which he ought to have carried out in res…

Chander Bhan, Hansi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4112/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Chander Bhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 566/14, Jind Road, Ward-1, Hisar, Saniyan Mohalla, Haryana Hansi Distt., Hisar, Haryana Pan: Ayypb8380N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…n of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/- which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- which was part of enhanced compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. AO who passed the impugned assessment order dated 22.01.2021 without making any addition. The assessment was completed after carrying out proper enquiries which he ought to have carried out in res…

Subhash Chander, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2356/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 2356/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Subhash Chander, Vs Pcit, House No. 1476, Vivek Nagar, Rohtak, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Axlpc0177G Assessee By : Sh. Kuldip Khera, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20, Arises Against The Pcit, Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023–24/1062890142(1) Dated 19.03.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Kuldip Khera, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…n of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/- which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- which was part of enhanced compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. AO who passed the impugned assessment order dated 22.01.2021 without making any addition. The assessment was completed after carrying out proper enquiries which he ought to have carried out in res…

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…ward is till the final disposal of the appeal filed by the Government of State of Maharashtra. Having considered the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC) which had held that additional amount of compensation or enhanced compensation are taxable u/s.45(5)(b) in the year of receipt. Ld. CIT(A) took similar view in respect of interest received on compensation by holding it taxable in the year of receipt u/s.56(2)(viii) as ‘income from other sources’ amounting to Rs. 43,08,61,042/-. Thus, the addit…

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…ward is till the final disposal of the appeal filed by the Government of State of Maharashtra. Having considered the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC) which had held that additional amount of compensation or enhanced compensation are taxable u/s.45(5)(b) in the year of receipt. Ld. CIT(A) took similar view in respect of interest received on compensation by holding it taxable in the year of receipt u/s.56(2)(viii) as ‘income from other sources’ amounting to Rs. 43,08,61,042/-. Thus, the addit…

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Gurdev Singh, Panipat

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5259/DEL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Room No. 203, Vs. Gurdev Singh, First Floor, Aayakar 1, Village Rajapur, Post Bhawan, Sector-6, Office Dadlana, Panipat Panipat-132024 (Pan: Fwxps8888E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025

Section 145BSection 28Section 34Section 45(5)Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.YR. : 2018-19 ITO, WARD-1, ROOM NO. 203, Vs. GURDEV SINGH, FIRST FLOOR, AAYAKAR 1, VILLAGE RAJAPUR, POST BHAWAN, SECTOR-6, OFFICE DADLANA, PANIPAT PANIPAT-132024 (PAN: FWXPS8888E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.05.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 19.8.2024 passed by the NFAC, Del…

Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 2405/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 2(14)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…e Assessee's favour by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT Pune Bench. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred also in considering the SLP 'dismissed in limine' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Law of Land and decision in the case of CIT, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC) still prevails. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground: 1) The notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law since the approval obtained by the learned A.O. is not as per the conditions laid down in section 151 and accordingly, the not…

Daya Ram, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2268/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldaya Ram, Vs. Pcit, Village Patauda Khera, Rohtak Po Patauda, Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Avrpr0237L Assessee By : Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, Adv Revenue By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…on of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/¬which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- which was part of enhanced compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. AO who passed the impugned assessment order dated 22. 01 . 2021 without making any addition. The assessment was completed after carrying out proper enquiries which he ought to have carried out in…

Shiv Narayan, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2196/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Shiv Narayan, Vs. Dcit, H. No. 137, V & Po, Circle-3(1), Shikohpur, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan:Akfpn6891B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…n of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/- which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- which was part of enhanced compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. AO who passed the impugned assessment order dated 22.01.2021 without making any addition. The assessment was completed after carrying out proper enquiries which he ought to have carried out in res…

Malini, Thirunindravur vs. ACIT, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2362/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:2362/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Malini, The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Ganapathy Puram, Near Vs. Income Tax, Ragvendra Nagar, Periyapalayam Non Corporate Circle 22(1), (Tbm), Road, Thiruninravur 602 024, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ajspm-9167-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 25.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find That The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are Bonafide & Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 250Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…of the CIT(A) on the above point is erroneous on point of law. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on the above issue. The CIT(A) ought to have followed the ratio of decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Ghashyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 and hence ought to have allowed the appeal of the assessee on the above score. 4. Fore these and such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is submitted that the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and necessary relief as sought by the assessee may be granted and oblige. 7. Before the Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assesse…

Krishan Pal Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1268/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

…tion of the Act is taxable or not. The appellant hereby submits Paras nos. from the relevant Cases Laws being relied upon by the Appellant as part and parcel of his written submission being submitted in support of his appeal. [2009] 182 taxman 368(SC)/ [2009] 315 ITR 1(SC) / [2009] 224 CTR 522 (SC) [16-07-2009] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of income tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) S.H KAPADIA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4401 TO 4420, 4422 TO 4426 OF 2009 JULY 16, 2009 8 Krishan Pal Singh vs. ITO Section 45 read with section 155 of the income tax act 1961 and Sec 23, 28 and 34 of the Land Acq…

Shastri Lal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3918/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…n of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/- which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- which was part of enhanced compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. AO who passed the impugned assessment order dated 22.01.2021 without making any addition. The assessment was completed after carrying out proper enquiries which he ought to have carried out in res…

Dilbag Singh, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…n of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/- which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- which was part of enhanced compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. AO who passed the impugned assessment order dated 22.01.2021 without making any addition. The assessment was completed after carrying out proper enquiries which he ought to have carried out in res…

Vilas Kisan Patil, Uran vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Itd, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2178/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2178/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vilas Kisan Patin, V The Assessing Officer, House No.82, Panje, S Assessment Unit, Itd, Uran,Tal.Panvel, Panvel. Dist-Raigad, Maharashtra – 400702. Pan: Ayipp1671N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.08.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,92,72,028/- Made By Ld. Ao By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viii) R.W.S 57(Iv) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The I.T.Act, 1961, Not Appreciating That The Said Amount Was Interest Granted U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Thus Bore The Character Of Enhanced Compensation On Acquisition Of Agricultural Land Situated At Village Panje, Tal.Uran, Dist. Raigd, Maharashtra & Was Therefore Exempt From Tax & The Addition Is Required To Be Deleted. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Later, Amend And/Or Vary The Grounds Of The Appeal At Any Time Before The Decision Of The Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. Ld.Ar For The Assessee Filed A Paper Book Containing 54 Pages. Ld.Ar Filed A Written Submission. Ld.Ar Submitted That Assessee Had Received Rs.3,85,44,057/- As Interest Under Section 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act. Ld.Ar Submitted That Said Interest Is Not Taxable As Held By The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court. Ld.Ar Filed Copy Of The Judgment. Ld.Ar Also Relied On The Following

Section 145Section 145ASection 148Section 23Section 23(1)(A)Section 250Section 28Section 4Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…ion 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Ld.AR submitted that said interest is not taxable as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Ld.AR filed copy of the Judgment. Ld.AR also relied on the following ITAT Pune Bench decisions as under :  CIT-vs-Ghanshyam (HUF), 315 ITR 1 (SC)[2009]  Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai-vs-ITO-TDS, 70 taxmann.com 45 (Gujarat) [2016]  Rupesh Rashmikant Shah-vs-Union of India, 108 taxmann.com 181 (Bombay) [2019]  Kusum Jayram Thakur Dhutum-vs-ITO, 162 taxmann.com 388 (Pune - Trib.) [2024]  Sanjay Bhimrao Patil-vs-ITO, 150 taxmann.com 153 (Pune - Trib.) [2023]  ITO-vs-Vinayak Hari Pa…

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…ising the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by not appreciating that the assessment order was passed by the assessing officer following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 182 Taxman 368/315 ITR 1(SC); CIT, Rajkot v. Govindbhai Mamaiya [2014] 52 taxmann.com 270/(2015] 229 Taxman 138/(2014] 367 ITR 498(SC); UOI v. Hari Singh [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC). Being so the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 17.04.2021 was not amenable to revision under section 263 of the Act. 4. That having regard to the fact…

Jagjit Singh Kataria, Sonepat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1245/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…ioner of Income Tax has erroneously relied on the judgment of jurisdictional 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. CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) (dated 16.7.2009); ii. CIT vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya 367 ITR 4 98(SC) (dated 4.9.2014; iii. CIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF) C.A. No, 13053/2017 (dated 12.9.2017); iv. UOI and ORS vs. Hari Singh and ORS C.A. No. 15041/2017 (SC); v. ITO Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri C.A. No. 18475/2017.” 5. Per contra, the Department's Representative submitted th…

Nishant Choudhary, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2863/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aempc0965Q Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana Dated 13.02.2019 In Case No. 255/Rot/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28

…n of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/- which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- which was part of enhanced compensation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Ld. AO who passed the impugned assessment order dated 22.01.2021 without making any addition. The assessment was completed after carrying out proper enquiries which he ought to have carried out in res…

Vachaspati Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 18Section 234BSection 234DSection 28Section 45(5)Section 56

…id into court before the date of such expiry." 9. The issue with regard to taxability awarded on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the land Acquisition Act 1894 was considered by the Supreme Court and in the case of CIT vs Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 182 Taxman 368/315 ITR 1 SC the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that; 23. In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 30 per cent on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. This is under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act. In short, section 23(2) talks about solatium. Award of sol…

Jai Singh Karwal, Hansi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1963/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 203Section 263Section 28

…1 Jai Singh Karwal, Vs. PCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1963/Del/2024, A.Y.2013-14) Jai Singh Karwal Principal Commissioner of House No. 3, Model Town, Income Tax, Aayakar Hansi, Vs. Bhawan, Opp, Mansarover Haryana park, Rohtak, PAN : ABCPK4153H Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Kuldip Khere, CA Respondent by Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 17/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement /11/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM : This appeal is…