Sunder v. UOI19. 19

7 SCC 211Reported decision2001#2059 most cited

What is Sunder v. UOI19. 19 authority for?

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, includes interest on statutory solatium, treating solatium as an integral part of compensation. For income tax, interest on delayed compensation under the LAA is taxed as capital gains, not as 'interest' under Section 2(28A), and qualifies for Section 10(37) exemption if the acquired land is agricultural.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sunder v. Union of India · interest on solatium · compulsory acquisition compensation · delayed compensation interest · Section 28 Land Acquisition Act · Section 34 Land Acquisition Act · Section 10(37) Income Tax Act · capital gains enhanced compensation · agricultural land capital gains exemption · Section 2(28A) Income Tax Act · taxability of interest on compensation · Section 45 Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 45(5)Section 145ASection 145BSection 145B(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 56(2)(viii)section 145bsection 10(37)section 2(28a)section 45(5)enhanced compensationsection 57(iv)compulsory acquisitionright to receivesection 18section 34date of transfer

Judgments citing Sunder v. UOI19. 19

SURESH KUMAR,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-4, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain,CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 28Section 56

…efits are available on the market value of the acquired lands under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) whereas Section 28 is available in respect of the entire compensation. It was held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India - (2001) 7 SCC 211, that "indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms it talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. Thus, interest awardable under Section 28, would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that even the provisions of Section 28 a…

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

ITTA/380/2010HC Telangana17 Dec 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1227/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…e of whether the\ninterest that is paid is under Section 28 or Section 34 of the LAA\nbecause the interest payments under both of the said provisions are\npremised on the same rationale [See: The constitution bench decision\nin Sundar v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 ].\n10. In the light of the discussion above, we hold that interest amounts\nreceived by an assessee in respect of delayed payment of\ncompensation under the LAA will be treated as accruals to the principal\ncompensation amount and be classified as \"Capital Gains' for the\npurposes of the I.T. Act. Consequently, the interest amounts will also\nget…

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1236/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta & Shri Mukesh Aggarwal,CAsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 18Section 28Section 4Section 5

…efits are available on the market value of the acquired lands under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) whereas Section 28 is available in respect of the entire compensation. It was held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India - (2001) 7 SCC 211, that "indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms it talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. Thus, interest awardable under Section 28, would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that even the provisions of Section 28 a…

VEERASWAMY JOTHEESWARAN,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVALLUR

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

ITA 1756/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी), "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज", उपा"य" के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1756/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Veeraswamy Jotheeswaran, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.23, Sri Lakshmi Narayana, Vs. Ward 1, Nivasam Santhosh Nagar 89, Tiruvallur Veppambattu B.O, Veppampattu, Tiruvallur – 602 024. PAN: AORPJ 2510H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Y. Sudarshan…

DEVARAYA PILLAI SUBRAMANIAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 56(2)(viii)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,‘ए’न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, ITO 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AIJPS-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCI…

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

ITTA/11/2017HC Telangana24 Mar 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

ITTA/293/2007HC Telangana03 May 2024

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

BARUNEI ROLLER FLOUR MILL (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1

In the result, the award of the maximum uniform rate for the

ITA/1/2022HC Orissa03 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

…ncompass the award of interest on the entire compensation, this argument is not accepted by this Court, in view of the fact in the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211, it has been held that interest awardable under Section 28 would include within its ambit, both the market value and the statutory solatium. 42. In this context, it would also be beneficial to refer to the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432, wherein at parag…

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

ITTA/65/2007HC Telangana25 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. M/S JAY AUTO COMPONENTS LTD.

ITA/366/2022HC Delhi26 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/130/2019HC Rajasthan28 Jul 2022

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

ITA/5/2012HC Orissa10 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

ITA/40/2007HC Orissa07 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, NEW DELHI vs. SHISHIR AGARWAL

ITA/49/2019HC Delhi17 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SIDWAL REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES LTD

ITA/827/2010HC Delhi16 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 9 vs. M/S VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.

ITA/247/2018HC Delhi02 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

ITO, REWARI vs. SH. RAMSARUP SAINI HUF, REWARI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2571/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2011-12 Ito Ramsarup Saini Huf Ward-2 Konsiwas Road Rewari 123 401 Rewari Pan Aaihr3464F Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…nal benefits are available on the market value of the acquired lands under ss. 23(1A) and 23(2) whereas s. 28 is 5 available in respect of the entire compensation. It was held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211, that “indeed the language of s. 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms it talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. Thus, interest awardable under s. 28, would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that even the provisions of s. 28 authorise the gr…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. DELHI PRESS SAMACHAR PATRA P.L

ITA/58/2007HC Delhi15 Oct 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITTA/287/2017HC Telangana08 Oct 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

…izrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI19. 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171 24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vill…

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3