How many judgments cite Rama Bai v. CIT?

258 judgments on BharatTax cite Rama Bai v. CIT (181 ITR 400), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rama Bai v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 57(iv), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 10(37), Section 1961, Section 45(5), Section 145A.

Rama Bai v. CIT

181 ITR 400Supreme Court of India1990#325 most cited

What is Rama Bai v. CIT authority for?

Interest income is taxable on either an accrual or cash basis, determined by accounting principles. This method was applicable prior to legislative changes that simplified the taxation of interest income.

258

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,244 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rama Bai v. CIT · 181 ITR 400 · taxation of interest income · accrual basis · cash basis · accounting principles for interest · Land Acquisition Act interest · Section 56(2)(viii) · Section 57(iv) · Section 45(5) · Section 145A

Also reported as

84 CTR 144

Sections most often in play

Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 1961 Section 45(5)Section 145A Section 263 Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 56(viii)section 2(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 45(5)(b)section 23(1a)section 145a(b)section 145b section 45(5)section 145b(1)section 57(iv)section 104

Judgments citing Rama Bai v. CIT

Satbir, Narwana vs. ITO, Jind

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

ITA 1413/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Lagan Preet Sandhu, Sr.DR

Section 154Section 28Section 45(5)

…to assessment year 2010-11 interest received on compensation/enhanced compensation was taxable on proportionate basis for the each year in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rama Bai Vs. CIT dated 8.11.1989 reported in 181 ITR 400 (SC). The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment proceedings of the 5 ITA Nos. 1413 to 1437/Chd/2016 & 77 to 82/Chd/2017- Shri Satbir, Narwana and others. assessees and applied the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Bai (supra) and held that the interest received by the assessees on the enhanc…

The New Vikash Co-Op. House Building Society Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result ITA NO. 6051/Del/2013 is partly allowed

ITA 3596/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Deepali Chandra, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 148Section 155Section 2(24)Section 2(31)Section 45Section 45(5)

…amount of enhanced compensation was charged to tax in Assessment Year 2003-04. As the interest thereon is to be taxed based on regular accounting method followed by the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rama Bai vs. CIT vs. 181 ITR 400, ld AO asked the assessee to explain its method of accounting as well as bifurcation of interest. The assessee submitted that it follows mercantile system of accounting; further, the assessee did not furnish any year wise break up of interest. Therefore, the ld AO worked out the interest on its own. During the course of assessment proceedings it…

Amrik Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 543/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R.R Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Mohan, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 145ASection 148Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…compensation was received by the assessee at the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and that the interest pertained to the period from 15.5.2003 to 10.5.2009 and that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rama Bai, Vs. CIT’, [1990] 181 ITR 400 (SC), the interest cannot said to have been accrued on the date of the order of the court granting enhanced compensation but as having occurred year after year from the date of delivery of possession of land till the date of such order, and that such interest cannot be assessed to income tax in one lump sum in the year in which the order is made…

Darbara Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 542/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R.R Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Mohan, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 145ASection 148Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Shri Dinesh Yadav, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 141/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Charitra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…unt and, therefore, is a revenue receipt tax under the Incomet ax Act.” This position of law has been consistently by this Court in the case of TMK Govindaraju Chetty vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [66ITR 465], Rama Rai & Ors. vs. CIT, Andhra Pradesh [181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao vs. CIT, A.P. [181 ITR 408]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt eligible to income tax. It is true that in amending the definition of "interest" in Section 2(28A) interest was defined to mean interest payable i…

Sh. Lakha Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1390/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Charitra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Sh. Puneet Singh, Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1388/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Charitra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

JCIT (OSD), CC-Xx, Kolkata vs. M/S G. S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 1516/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…e pertains to the earlier years and therefore the same should be taxed in the respective assessment year to which it pertains. The assessee in support of its claim has relied in the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Bai v. CIT reported in 181 ITR 400 (SC) and CIT vs. TNK Gobindarajualau Chetty reported in 165 ITR 231 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee has deleted the addition made by AO by observing as under:- “.. … In the instant case the award of Rs.7,78,13,692/- (Libyan Dinar 22,50,000/- + Rs.39,00,000/-) was awarded by the Arbitrators by an Arbitration Awar…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Dinesh Shrama, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 226/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 133Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 34Section 48

…the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as mentioned by the AO. Your Honour Sir, with due regards I would like to draw your benign attention to the three land mark judgements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: CIT vs Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 'l Rama Bai vs CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400 I.T.A .No.-226/Del/2013 DCIT vs DINESH SHRAMA Page 5 of 19 Gurpreet Singh vs union of India [2006] PLJ 593 In the case of CIT vs Ghanshyam (HUF), also referred to by the AO, while making the addition, it has been very clearly stated that interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid on the excess amount under section 28 of t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Suraj Bhan, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 3642/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2007-08 Ito, Ward- 38(2), Suraj Bhan, New Delhi. H. No.335, Vs. Village & P.O.- Rithala, Delhi. Pan : Asspb 0263 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Adv

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 45(5)Section 45(5)(b)

…030) as enhanced compensation, solatium and additional amount are clearly within the ambit of above are exempt u/s 10(37)." The appellant also relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) and Rama Bai & Ors. Vs. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC).” 3. Ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessee’s submissions, held that the enhanced compensation was in respect of agricultural land as prescribed for exemption u/s 10(37). He further observed that as per Explanation to section 10(37), the enhanced compensation was also exempt from tax. Being aggrieved, the Department is in appeal befor…

Sh. Dev Raj Kataria, Panipat vs. DCIT, Panipat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands disposed off accordingly

ITA 270/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

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

Section 76Section 87

…ier years was not offered as the time limit for revising the returns or rectifying the assessments had already expired. The AO took a stand that the entire amount is chargeable to tax in the year of receipt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rama Bai VS CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC) has held that Interest on enhanced compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act accrues year after year and not on the date of granting enhanced compensation. In view of this articulation of law by the Hon'ble Apex court, there can be no question of charging the entire amount of interest to tax in the year of receipt as has been done…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta

Section 143(3)

…time. Interest is defined in AS-9 (supra) as a charge for the use of cash resources or the amount due to the enterprise, and is well settled to accrue on a day-to-day basis, i.e., irrespective of when it is due for payment (refer, Smt. Rama Bai vs. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400 (SC)). This is precisely the case here, calling it interest or dividend or by any other name would be of little moment, as long as it is understood that it inures by lapse of time, as in the case of interest, which is commonly understood as the time cost of funds. Reference toward this, may be made to s. 2(28A) of the Act, defining ‘interest’. Th…

Smt. Vidyawati, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, both the grounds raised by the assessee on legal as well as merits, are allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2771/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Jyoti Kumari, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 263

…ion and therefore has to be brought to tax under the head capital gains on receipt basis. As regards the interest received u/s 34, it is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources on accrual basis as held in the case of Rama Bai Vs CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400 (sq. Interest received U/s 34 has been brought to tax under the head income from other sources on receipt basis by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 by amending section 145A of the IT Act. Therefore, till the AY 2010- 11, interest received u/s 34 is liable to be brought to tax on accrual basis. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs…

ACIT, Bulandshahr vs. Shri Ashok Kumar Singhal, Bulandshahr

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1836/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T.Varkey, Judicial Membr Ay: 2006-07 Acit, Circle Bulandshahr Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Singhal Aayakar Bhavan 244 A, Raje Babu Road Teacher’S Colony Bulandshahr Bulandshahr

For Appellant: Sh. K.k.Jaiswal, D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Singhal, Adv

Section 60

…ntly directed that the compensation is to be split between the assessee and his son equally in terms of the order of the Civil Court. On the issue of taxability of interest, he relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rama Bai vs. CIT, 181 ITR 400(S.C.) and held that the interest has to be assessed on accrual basis only and as no interest accrued during the year the addition is to be deleted. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on both the issues. 3. 4. We have heard Shri K.K.Jaiswal, Ld.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Rajiv Singhal, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. 5. On…

Haripal Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow ground no

ITA 6076/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. S. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. V.K. Garg, Adv. & Sh. Anil Chopra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Robin Rawal, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 56Section 57

…rovisions of the Finance No. 2 Act, 2009 and Circular No. 5/2010/[F.No. 142/13/2010-SO(TPL)] dated 3.6.2010 for the proposition that, interest income should be computed on accrual basis as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rama Bai vs. CIT 181 ITR 400. Hence he argued that, as the compensation and interest thereon is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the question of taxing the same as income in the current year does not arise. 9. The ld. DR Mr. Robin Rawal on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that the assessee filed an appeal with the help of p…

National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federagin of India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi XI & Anr

ITA/1096/2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…hat there was no liability to pay interest for the subsequent period, particularly because both in equity as well as in law, interest is invariably awarded till the outstanding dues are paid. Learned counsel relied upon the case of Rama Bai v. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC), wherein, interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was held to have accrued year after year from the time possession of land was taken upto the date of actual payment of the amount of compensation. He submitted that though the decision was rendered in the context of land acquisition, however, the ratio is applicable to aw…

National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi XI & Anr

ITA - 1138 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

…ean that there was no liability to pay interest for the subsequent period, particularly because both in equity as well as in law. interest is invariably awarded till the outstanding dues are paid. Learned counsel relied upon the case of Rama Bai v. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC), wherein, interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was held to have accrued year after year from the time possession of land was taken upto the date of actual payment of the amount of compensation. He submitted that though the decision was rendered in the context of land acquisition, however, the ratio is applicable to award mad…

National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federagin of India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi XI & Anr

ITA - 1096 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011