T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT

66 ITR 465Supreme Court of India1967#1269 most cited

What is T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT authority for?

Interest received under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for delayed or enhanced compensation, is a revenue receipt and is taxable under the Income Tax Act.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT · 66 ITR 465 · interest on delayed compensation · Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 28 · Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 34 · revenue receipt taxable · compensation income taxability · Income Tax Act 1961 · Section 45(5) · taxability of interest on enhanced compensation

Sections most often in play

Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 1961Section 57(iv)Section 145ASection 45(5)Section 1894Section 143(2)

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 104section 145b(1)section 194lakeyman insurancesection 23(2)section 160

Judgments citing T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT

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

…id for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465 : AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [[1990] 84 CTR 144/181 ITR 408/[1991] 54 Taxman 339 (SC)] . 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 exigible to income tax. It is tru…

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)

…aid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 465 : AIR 1968 SC 129] , Rama Bai v. CIT [1990 Supp SCC 699 : (1990) 181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [(1990) 181 ITR 408 (SC)]. 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 exigible to income tax. It is true that in amending the definitio…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2016-17 Jayantilal Paghadal, The ITO, At Charan Samdhiyala Ward-1(2)(3) New Plot Area, Vs Rajkot Tal-Jetpur (Respondent) Rajkot-365480 PAN: AZBPP7196E (Appellant) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 07-12-2023 Date of pronouncement : 13-12-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed against the order dated 26-08-2022 passed…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…t of enhanced compensation in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)[2009] 315 ITR 1/182 Taxman 368. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that in the case of TMK Govindaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [66 ITR 465], Rama Rai &Ors. v. CIT, Andhra Pradesh [181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT, A.P. [181 ITR 408]; this position of law has been consistently reiterated by Supreme Court by holding that it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt eligible to income tax. The Hon‟ble High Court dismiss…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…t of enhanced compensation in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)[2009] 315 ITR 1/182 Taxman 368. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that in the case of TMK Govindaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [66 ITR 465], Rama Rai &Ors. v. CIT, Andhra Pradesh [181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT, A.P. [181 ITR 408]; this position of law has been consistently reiterated by Supreme Court by holding that it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt eligible to income tax. The Hon‟ble High Court dismiss…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…t of enhanced compensation in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)[2009] 315 ITR 1/182 Taxman 368. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that in the case of TMK Govindaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [66 ITR 465], Rama Rai &Ors. v. CIT, Andhra Pradesh [181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT, A.P. [181 ITR 408]; this position of law has been consistently reiterated by Supreme Court by holding that it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt eligible to income tax. The Hon‟ble High Court dismiss…

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)

…tion payable by the State for keeping back the amount payable to the owner." The principle of Dr.Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CI1'[1967] 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines "interest" and was inserted by Finance Act, 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other cha…

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

…he interest paid u] s 34 of the act is interest paid for the delayed payment of compensation and therefore it is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the income tax act. iv. The court also considered several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 66 ITR 465, 181 ITR 400 & 181 ITR 408. v. The Hon’ble court in para number 10 categorically held that interest received as income on the delayed payment of the compensation determined u/s 28 or 31 [?] {sic 34} of the 13 ITA No.499/Del./2021 land acquisition act is taxable event. It held that it is a revenue receipt chargeable to tax u/ s 4 of the act. vi. I…

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)

…delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income-tax Act .... " (p. 158) 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. GovindarajuChettyv. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 465, Rama Rai v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400 and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [1990] 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 exigible to income-tax. It is true that in amending the definition of 'interest' in section 2(28A), interest was d…

Smt. Urmila Garg, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1183/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 96

…ision referred to the following three judges bench cases 1. Three judges bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 151. 2. Three judges bench decision of the Apex Court in T. N. Govindaraju Chetty V CIT (1967) 66 ITR 465. 3. Three Judges Bench decision of Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551. In all the above cases the Apex Court has held that interest u/s 28 is a revenue receipt. SLP filed was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order C. No. 34642 of 2014 dated 18.12.2014 ordering as under:- "Heard Ld. Counsel for the pet…

Shri Satish Kumar, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1182/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 96

…ision referred to the following three judges bench cases 1. Three judges bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 151. 2. Three judges bench decision of the Apex Court in T. N. Govindaraju Chetty V CIT (1967) 66 ITR 465. 3. Three Judges Bench decision of Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551. In all the above cases the Apex Court has held that interest u/s 28 is a revenue receipt. SLP filed was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order C. No. 34642 of 2014 dated 18.12.2014 ordering as under:- "Heard Ld. Counsel for the pet…

Sh. Nitya Nand, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6508/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 28Section 44ASection 56(2)(viii)Section 89

…n payable by the Slate for keeping back the amount payable to the owner. " The principle of Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K.Govindaraju C/iefty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines ‘’interest " and was inserted by Finance Act. 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "'interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other…

Sh. Balbir Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 652/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…on payable by the State for keeping back the amount payable to the owner." The principle of Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines "interest” and was inserted by Finance Act, 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "'interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other c…

Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 651/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…on payable by the State for keeping back the amount payable to the owner." The principle of Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines "interest” and was inserted by Finance Act, 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "'interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other c…

Sh. Lakhvinder Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 649/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…on payable by the State for keeping back the amount payable to the owner." The principle of Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines "interest” and was inserted by Finance Act, 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "'interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other c…

Sh. Balwinder Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 648/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…on payable by the State for keeping back the amount payable to the owner." The principle of Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines "interest” and was inserted by Finance Act, 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "'interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other c…

Sh. Baldev Raj, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 612/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…on payable by the State for keeping back the amount payable to the owner." The principle of Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines "interest” and was inserted by Finance Act, 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "'interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other c…

Sh. Jagtar Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 610/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…on payable by the State for keeping back the amount payable to the owner." The principle of Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines "interest” and was inserted by Finance Act, 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "'interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other c…

Sh. Ganesh Dass Mehta, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 609/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…on payable by the State for keeping back the amount payable to the owner." The principle of Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines "interest” and was inserted by Finance Act, 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "'interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other c…

Sh. Bant Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 607/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…on payable by the State for keeping back the amount payable to the owner." The principle of Dr. Shamlal Narula's case (supra) had subsequently been applied by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a later decision in T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465. 13. Further Section 2(28A) of the Act defines "interest” and was inserted by Finance Act, 1976 to be effective from 1.6.1976. It reads thus:- "'interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other c…