← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(viii)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)226 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(viii) is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viii)

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.
343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
438
citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)
315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Rama Bai v. CIT
181 ITR 400 · 1990 · Supreme Court
258
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya
91 Taxmann.com 20 · 2018 · Supreme Court
205
citing judgments

Interest on enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the compensation, not merely interest income, and is exigible to tax on a receipt basis.

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills
296 ITR 238 · 2008 · High Court
180
citing judgments

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT
161 Taxmann.com 301 · 2024 · High Court
178
citing judgments

Interest received as enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for compulsory acquisition of land is taxable as "income from other sources" under Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is not exempt under Section 10(37).

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.
331 ITR 192 · 2011 · High Court
152
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has taken one of two possible views on a debatable issue during assessment proceedings.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(viii)

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

further submitted that after the judgment of the Ghanshyam’s HUF case (Supra) the legislature introduced the provisions of section 56(2) (viii) vide an amendment w.e.f.1-04-2010 by the Finance Act (No2) Act ,2009. She has further submitted that in the case of Mahender Pal Narang v DBDT New Delhi ... Court of Gujarat in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai (supra) held that the words "interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation" in Sections 56(2) (viii) and 57(iv) was plain, simple and unambiguous and therefore, any interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation shall be assessable as income

Sills Karingattil Jose, Nedumkandom vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

issue of 82,200 shares, the name of wife and father of the assessee would also not be hit by the provisions of section 56(2)(viii)(c) as both of them would be covered by the definition of relative covered in the exemption of relative, and therefore, the provisions

Jai Singh Karwal, Hansi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1963/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 203Section 263Section 28

Income from other sources”. The Judgments relied upon by the Assessee have been rendered in respect of Assessment Years prior to introduction of Sections 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) and 145A(b) by Finance Act 2009 w.e.f 01/04/2010. Thus, submitted that the Appeal of the Assessee deserves to be dismissed

Parammal Kadeeja, Randathani vs. Income Tax Officer (Ward 1), Tirur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 673/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhparammal Kadeeja The Income Tax Officer Poolakkodan House Ward (1), Tirur Randathani P.O. Vs. Malappuram 676510 [Pan: Ajpk2223K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None ------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

that of taxability of assessee’s interest income u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where the lower authorities have quoted section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 57(vi) r.w.s. 144(b) of the Act that the issue is no more res integra post facto the statutory amendments

Pallath Nafeesa, Malappuram vs. ITO, Tirur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 118/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Pallath Nafeesa The Income Tax Officer Poolakkodan House Tirur Athirumada, Punnathala Vs. Tirur, Malappuram 676552 [Pan: Alipn9300R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 194ASection 197Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

compensation shall be exempted u/s 10(37) of the Actor chargeable to tax as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act. In this regard we note that the issue on hand is squarely covered in favour ... interest amount received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is taxable as per the provisions of section 57(iv) read with section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A(b) of the I.T. Act. Section 145A of the I.T. bears the heading "Method of accounting in certain cases". Section

Sujatabai Shesherao Bansode, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 4, Latur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 950/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar Atp & Tq Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. Pan : Aplpb6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal On The Ground That The Reasons For Delay Are Not Found To Be Satisfactory. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Has & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reasons For Delay Were Beyond The Control Of The Appellant & Were Genuine For Which The Delay Ought To Have Be Condoned & Appeal Ought To Have Decided On Merits.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Hardev Raj, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sirsa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 156Section 249(4)(b)

further erred both in law and on fact in sustaining the view taken by learned Assessing Officer of making addition by invoking section 56(2)(viii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act and 145A(b) of the Act to sustain the impugned addition. 5. That even otherwise

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

that the interest was received on enhanced compensation on acquisition of land which is taxable under the head ‘income from other sources’ under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145A(b) but directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the income of Rs. 1,05,75,310/- after allowing a deduction ... will be exigible to tax under the "income from other sources" in view of amendment w.e.f 01.04.2010 in the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Act. 15. Before proceeding further, we find it appropriate to deal with the various provisions of the laws that comes

Chandrakant Gordhanbhai Patel HUF, Dabhoi vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 485/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Final Hearing Of This Appeal Petition…”

For Appellant: None(Written Submission filed by the assessee)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

facts are relatable, the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is not very clear wr.t. the provisions of section 145B(1) and section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, 1961. The appellant fails to furnish any decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue. The addition made ... Chandrkant Gordhanbhai Patel v. DCIT evidences in the paper book , which also requires verification and inquiry. Proceeding further, there is an amendment in Section 56(2)(viii) by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 , and if the same is read with Section 145B(1), the interest income on enhanced compensations

Rumana Bano Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Mum-C-(401)(91), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1376/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 69

short (the “Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Coming to both learned lower authorities action making section 56(2)(viii)(b) read with section 69 read with section 115BBE addition of Rs. 58,99,000/- representing undisclosed investment(s), it emerges at the outset with

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)

Assessing 1 Officer [In short, the ‘AO’] and revert the issue of chargeability of interest on enhanced compensation under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act back to the AO for completing the assessment afresh. 2. Following grounds of appeal were taken in the present appeal: - “1. That ... case of CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)" submitted that the Hon'ble High court held that "conjoint reading of the provisions of sections 56(2)(viii) and 145-B of the Act vividly stipulate that the income received by way of interest on compensation or on enhanced compensation, after the amendment

Shree Ganesh Builders, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Pune

ITA 207/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115BSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

actual purchase cost of immovable property. 2 ITA No.207/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2016-17 2. The ld CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that the section 56(2)(viii) was applicable only for Individual/HUF and not to the partnership firm and section 56(2)(x) was inserted w.e.f. 1/04/2017 thus not applicable ... Stamp duty valuation: Regarding the difference Rs 51,20,000/- in valuation as per ready recknor and actual consideration, it is submitted here, section 56(2) (viii) was applicable only for Individual and HUF and not to partnership firm. Further, Section 56(2)(x) was inserted to apply

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

well as latter issue of addition of Rs.14,84,463/-; respectively. He further quoted the statutory amendments in 3 Samadhan Krushna Katekar section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 57(iv) r.w.s. 145B(i) inserted by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 to support the impugned former addition. 5. We have given ... interest income received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as taxable under the head income from “Other” sources under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The assessee‟s case before us is that such an interest income is part of the land acquisition compensation itself

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)

interest income received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as taxable under the head income from “Other” sources under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The assessee’s case before us is that such an interest income is part of the land acquisition compensation itself ... covered in assessee’s favour as per the hon’ble high court’s Bombay bench holding that the same is not taxable under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act as against the Revenue’s contentions that the Aurangabad bench of the very hon’ble jurisdictional high court has taken

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)

impugned order, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv), applied by the AO in disallowing the assessee’s claim for exemption of interest on enhanced compensation from tax, which stand brought ... regarded as mistaken and amended (refer, inter alia, Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchg. Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC)). 3.3 Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) came on the statute w.e.f. 01.04.2010, i.e., AY 2010-11 onwards. The decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra

Om Prakash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1674/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Om Prakash Vs. Principal Cit 45 Matana Majra, Rohtak Fatehabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Cmspp7173D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

year in 8 Om Prakash, Fatehabad Vs. Pr. CIT which it is received. It is thus evident that the amended provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the Act r.w. section 145A were brought on the statute to nullify the effect of Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling ... assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble P & H High Court. The question for consideration was "whether after the insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2010, can the assessee claim that interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition

Jai Parkash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2018-19 Jai Parkash, Vs. Principal Commissoiner Of Bhattu Road, Income Tax, Rohtak Near Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad – 125050 Haryana (Pan: Amypk5328D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

Supreme Court, related to the taxability of interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation and also the amendments / provisions of Section 56(2)(viii) introduced through Finance Act, 2009 effective from the 01.4.2010 on the above issue, which he has clearly failed to do. 6.1 ……… ………………………………………….. (ii) …………………………………………………. …………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. 7. Keeping in view ... income from other sources" ? It was argued by the assessee that there is no amendment in section 10(37) and by insertion of sections 56(2)[viii) and 57(iv), the nature of interest under section 28 of the compensation and decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Gulshan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

dated 24.09.2020 (pages 39-42 of Paper Book) was issued inviting the attention of the assessee to the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 57(iv) and section 145B(1) of the Act. 8.2 The Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee submitted reply (page ... assessee while filing return of income. The Ld. AO accepted the explanation of the assessee. 12. The issue of amended provisions of section 56(2)(viii) by the Finance Act, 2009 and the decision of Hon’ble P & H High Court in Mahender Pal Narang’s case was raised

Purnimasareen, Panipat vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 892/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Smt. Purnima Sareen Vs. Pr. Cit, 744-745, Model Town, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana-132103 Pan Bokps2116C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

dated 16th July, 2009 relating to the taxability of interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation and also the amendments/provisions of section 56(2)(viii) introduced through Finance Act, 2009 effective from 01.04.2010 on the above issue, which the Ld. AO failed to do. The Ld. PCIT pointed out that ... assessee while filing return of income. The Ld. AO accepted the explanation of the assessee. 11. The issue of amended provisions of section 56(2)(viii) by the Finance Act, 2009 and the decision of Hon’ble P & H High Court in Mahender Pal Narang’s case was raised

Pawan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Prcit, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Vs. Prcit, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Rohtak Prince Plywood Home, Fuwara Chowk, Fatehabad, Haryana 125050 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surajbhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 28

Ghanshyam HUF dated 16th July, 2009 relating to the taxability of interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation and also the amendments/provisions of section 56(2)(viii) introduced through Finance Act, 2009 effective from 01.04.2010 on the above issue, which the Ld. AO failed to do. The Ld. PCIT pointed ... audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of 4 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others