Puneet Singh v. CIT, Karnal

415 ITR 215High Court2019#4214 most cited

What is Puneet Singh v. CIT, Karnal authority for?

Delayed payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land, including interest, is taxable as income, especially after amendments to Section 56(2)(viii) and Section 145B(1). This treatment applies to amounts received post-amendment, distinguishing it from pre-amendment rulings.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Puneet Singh v. CIT · Section 56(2)(viii) · Section 145B(1) · enhanced compensation · interest on enhanced compensation · compulsory acquisition · taxable income · amended provisions · capital gains

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Puneet Singh v. CIT, Karnal

Pawan Kumar, Karnal Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnal Haryana

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

ITA 3891/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roypawan Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hn-24/4, Dera Begampura, Karnal. Vpo – Gudha, Tehsil Gharaunda, Karnal – 132 114 (Haryana). (Pan : Boqpk1912N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 11.02.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 26.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee From The Date Of First Posting On 27.03.2024 & Subsequently Several Hearing Dates Were Given But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Proceeded To Adjudicate The Issue With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

…by the Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi as well as Punjab & Haryana in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 10 v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) reported in [2024] 423 ITR 13 (Delhi) and Mahender Pal Narang [2021] 415 ITR 13 (P & H) & Puneet Singh (2019) 415 ITR 215(P&H). The above said decisions are pronounced by the Hon’ble High Courts after the amendment of section 56(2)(vii) r.w.s. 57 (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we are inclined to dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed…

Madhu Grewal, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 603/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…nder Pal Narang vs CBDT (423 ITR 13) (P&H HC), wherein it was held that “13…interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is to be treated as "income from other sources" and not under the head "capital gains" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed by the Supreme Court, had held that the interest received under s. 28 of the 1894 A…

Parveen Kumar, 229, Village Manakpur-II, Tehsil Jagadhri, Haryana vs. Prabhjot Kaur, PCIT Panchkula, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 576/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…nder Pal Narang vs CBDT (423 ITR 13) (P&H HC), wherein it was held that “13…interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is to be treated as "income from other sources" and not under the head "capital gains" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed by the Supreme Court, had held that the interest received under s. 28 of the 1894 A…

Ashok Kumar Thakral, Jagadhri vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 455/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…nder Pal Narang vs CBDT (423 ITR 13) (P&H HC), wherein it was held that “13…interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is to be treated as "income from other sources" and not under the head "capital gains" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed by the Supreme Court, had held that the interest received under s. 28 of the 1894 A…