Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT

53 ITR 151Supreme Court of India1964#1111 most cited

What is Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT authority for?

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation does not form part of the compensation itself but is taxable as 'income from other sources', analogous to interest under Section 34 of the Act.

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sham Lal Narula v. CIT · 53 ITR 151 · interest enhanced compensation · Section 28 Land Acquisition Act 1894 · not part of compensation · taxable income from other sources · Section 34 Land Acquisition Act · compulsory acquisition · Section 56(2)(viii) · Section 45(5) · taxability of interest · Supreme Court

Sections most often in play

Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 1961Section 57(iv)Section 45(5)Section 145ASection 1894Section 145B(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(viii)section 56(viii)section 45(5)(c)section 155(16)section 23(1a)section 45(5)(b)section 145b(1)section 104section 194lakeyman insurancesection 23(2)section 160

Judgments citing Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT

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)

…hrough the concerned amendment of 2010. Therefore, the said decision lacks any applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. Notably, a three-Judges Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT [(1964) 53 ITR 151], while considering the interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 to be analogous to the interest under Section 34 of the Act, took the view that the same did not form part of compensation. The relevant extract of the said decision is culled out as under:- "9. --- As we have pointed out, earlier, as soon as the Collector has taken possession o…

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

…ough the concerned amendment of 2010. Therefore, the said decision lacks any applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. Notably, a three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT [(1964) 53 ITR 151], while considering the interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 to be analogous to the interest under Section 34 of the Act, took the view that the same did not form part of compensation. The relevant extract of the said decision is culled out as under:- "9.— As we have pointed out, earlier, as soon as the Collector has taken possession of…

Bhim Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 255/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57Section 69ASection 80CSection 80D

…ensation u/s 28 of LAA. This issue of taxability of interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of LAA came up for consideration, way back in 1964, by a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT [(1964) 53 ITR 151]. The hon’ble Court considered the interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 to be analogous to the interest under Section 34 of the Act, and held that the same did not form part of compensation. The relevant extract of the said decision is culled out as under:- "9. ---As we have pointed out, earlier, as soon as the Collector has taken possess…

Veena Shah, Panipat vs. Pr CIT, Rohtak

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1222/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

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

…Haryana High Court in the caseof Mahender Pal Narang (supra) and the decision of theHon'ble Delhi High Court in the caseInderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) [2024] 161 taxmann.com 301. 21. A three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sham Lal Narula 53 ITR 151 held that the interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is analogous to the interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and such interest does not form part of the compensation. It is worth to reproduce the relevant part of the said decision as under: - 21 "9. ---As we have pointed out, earlier, as soon as the Collector has…

Samadhan Krushna Katekar, Raigad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Raigad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 426/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Samadhan Krushna Katekar Vs. National 214, Narmada Krishna Niwas Faceless Dhutum, Jasai Uran – 400702 Assessment Maharashtra Centre Pan : Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon‟ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 14.01.2014, decided this issue i…

Kusum Jayram Thakur, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panvel

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1332/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: S/Shri CH Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 28Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viii)

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon’ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 14.01.2014, decided this issue i…

Abdul Azeez Poolakkodan, Kottakkal vs. ITO Ward 1, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1006/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Anil Kumar Dugarabdul Azeez Poolakkodan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Poolakkodan House Tharif Bazar, Opp. Town Hall Randathani P.O. Vs. Tirur 676101 Malappuram 676510 [Pan: Acppa2490P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(37)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…nature of the receipt as capital, which is the purport of the decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), would not per se preclude interest from being, at the same time, subject to tax. Further, per it’s larger bench decision in Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 151 (SC), not referred to in it’s later decision in Ghanshyam (HUF)(supra), the Apex Court held the provisions of s. 28 and 34 of LAA as analogous, i.e., compensatory, and, thus, not part of compensation (pg. 156). The decision in P.V. Kurien v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 288 (Ker), holding interest on enhanced compensation as capital in nature, was negated by…

Shri Jayantilal Paghadal, at Charan Samdhiyala, New Area Plot, Taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot-365480 vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (2) (3), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 252/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 193Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…sation determined u/s 23(1). We, therefore, with respect, follow the large Bench judgement of the Honourable Apex Court." 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held in a catena of judicial pronouncements in the cases of Dr. Shamlal Narula Vs. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 151, T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty Vs CIT [1967] 66 ITR 465, Rama Rai V. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400 and K.S. Krishna Rao V. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 408 and have settled the law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation or the additional compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. 7. Thus, relying on the case laws cited above…

Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi L/H of Deceased Latiphoddin Ajimoddin Kazi, Latur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Latur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 835/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

Section 234ASection 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant ITA No.835/PUN/2023 : A.Y.2013-14 Azizuddin Ltiphoddin Kazi (L/h of Deceased Latiphoddin Ajimoddin Kazi) [A] material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments ca…

Shrihari Hanmant Navrange, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -3, Latur

ITA 921/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Respondent: Shri Manojkumar Tripathi
Section 10(37)Section 147Section 28

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon’ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 14.01.2014, decided this issue i…

Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -3, Latur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory 9 ITA.No.574/PUN/2020 Sh Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur. amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon’ble High Court,…

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

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

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [PAN:AAVPS4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT…

Sayyad Rafiq Ali Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1326/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 Basweshwar…

Sayyad Maksood Ali Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1325/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 Basweshwar…

Sayyad Atik Ali Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1324/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 Basweshwar…

Sayyad Matin Alli Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1327/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 Basweshwar…

Sayyad Hakeem Ali Iiahi Baksh, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1323/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(VIII)Section 57

…h (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 Basweshwar…

Bhagwan Vithoba More, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1806/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Bhagwan Vithoba More, The Income Tax Officer At Post Kopergaon, Ward -1, Latur Taluka & Dist. Latur Vs. Pan : Azvpm7554P

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 10(37)Section 144Section 145ASection 147Section 23Section 23(2)Section 28Section 34Section 45(5)Section 56(2)(viii)

…mpensation determined under section 23(1). Therefore, it is not exigible to income-tax. We find no force in the contention. 8. The controversy is no longer res integra. This question was considered elaborately by this Court in Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 151. Therein, K. Subba Rao, J., as he then was, considered the earlier case law on the concept of "interest" laid down by the Privy Council and all other cases and had held at page 158 as under: ... in a case where title passes to the State, the statutory interest provided thereafter can only be regarded either as representing the profit which the own…

Pranav Saran, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 499/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 251Section 251(2)Section 28Section 45Section 45(5)Section 56Section 57

…etermined under the provisions of the land acquisition act is a taxable event and therefore it is a revenue receipt exigible to tax u/s 4. iii. The Hon’ble court held that the controversy was decided greatly in the case of Dr sham Lal Narula versus CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 [ another three judges bench of Hon SC] wherein the definition of the interest was considered. It was held that when the title has passed on to the state any statutory interest provided thereafter can only be regarded either as representing the profit which the owner of the land might have made if here the use of the money or the losses suffered b…

Madhav Pandharinath Kande, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2584/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Madhav Pandharinath The Income Tax Officer Kande Ward -3 Vs. A/P Dhanora, Tal. Ahmedpur Latur Latur 413515 Pan – Cbwpp1670A Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Bharat Shah Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2013-14 Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A) 2, Aurangabad Dated 04.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit (A)-2/Set Aside/Pn/66/2011-12.755 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(2)Section 28Section 34Section 45Section 56(2)(viii)

…ion 23(1). Therefore, it is not exigible to income-tax. We find no force in the contention. 8. The controversy is no longer res integra. This question was considered elaborately by this Court in Dr.ShamlaINarulav. CIT [1964] 3 Shri Madhav Pandharinath Kande 53 ITR 151. Therein, K. Subba Rao, J., as he then was, considered the earlier case law on the concept of "interest" laid down by the Privy Council and all other cases and had held at page 158 as under: " ... in a case where title passes to the State, the statutory interest provided thereafter can only be regarded either as representing the profit which the o…