← 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)

Jai Bhagwan, Vpo Badshahpur, Gurgaon, Hr vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon, Haryana

The appeal stands allowed and the concurrent findings of the AO and CIT(A) are hereby affirmed

ITA 3239/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrajai Bhagwan Vs. Income Tax Officer Vpo Badshahpur Income Tax Building Gurgaon Gurugram- 122001 Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amapb8989P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 2Section 28Section 4Section 56

case of Bheem Singh in ITA. No.255/Del/2024 vide order dated 02.08.2024. Thus, in view of the amendment in statute by way of introducing Section 56[2][viii], 57[iv] and Section 145B of the Income Tax Act by Finance [No.2.] Act 2009 and above legal position the interest received ... passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] dated 19.06.2020, whereby, the ITAT deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer ["AO"] under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] for the Assessment Year ["AY"] 2016-17. 3. We may note that vide order dated

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Pcit, Sh. Radhey Shyam Saini, H. No. 1174/334, Rohtak Ramlila Chowk, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Bxhps4356Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Rohtak’S Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062878555(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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 ... under section 28 of Land 4 | P a g e Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Pcit, Shammi Nagpal Huf, H. No. 7, Sector-13, Hissar, Rohtak Haryana Pan: Aazhs3505D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “The Pcit”), Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062887031(1), Dated 19.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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 ... under section 28 of Land 4 | P a g e Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Karam Vir Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 2605/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmakaramvir Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, 1135, Sector 46, Nfac, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Abipy5863E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Assessee Company, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Act, So Much So That, The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Do Not Satisfy The Statutory Twin Conditions Prescribed Under Section 263 Of The Act, Viz., (I) That The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

enhanced compensation is exempt, has been stated by the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana or Supreme Court? (iii) Whether the provisions of section 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) read with section 145A are applicable in the case of assessee? (iv) Whether the AO is exempt from jurisdictional High Court ... compensation and added 50% of interest amount received on compensation received from collector of compulsory acquisition of agriculture land as the provision of Section 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) read with sub-section (10) of section 145B of the Income Tax Act, 1961in my income and taxes

Surender Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4 (1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Chaman, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2774/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

Section 147Section 250(4)

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Anant Changu Mokal, Dhatav, Kolad Roha vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2341/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Anant Changu Mokal, V National Faceless Dhatav Midc Colony, Kokad S Assessment Centre. Roha, Roha Av S.O., Raigarh – 402116. Pan: Ahnpm1926F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Naina Chaurasia – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 20.09.2024For Assessment Year2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,38,86,973/- As Interest Income Received On Account Of Compulsory Land Acquisition U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, Thus

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 145ASection 194ASection 250oSection 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)

from the Municipal Limits. However, Assessing Officer held that the interest on enhanced compensation, which was Rs.2,73,73,947/- was taxable under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145B of the Act. therefore, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,36,86,973/-, allowing the deduction under section

Hari Singh, Palwal vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4082/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Dinesh Kaushik, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5753/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Dinesh Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Panipat Vpo Baljattan, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Awjpk9483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 263Section 28Section 45(5)

addition made by the AO within the meaning of provisions of sec. 145B read with section 45(5) and amended provisions of sections 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves to add, amend or modify the grounds of appeal subsequently, before the appeal is disposed ... facts in reversing the assessment findings assessing the assessee’s section 28 interest on enhanced compensation, as taxable under section 56(2)(viii) read with section 57(iv) read with section 145B of the Act despite the fact that the issue is covered in the department’s favour in Mahender

Jile Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2223/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2223/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Jile Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 68, Sotai, Near Mahipal Ward-51(3), Nambardar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fzsps8684G Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Ajay Singh, New Delhi

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

ITA 912/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.912/िद"ी/2020(िन.व. 2015-16) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 28(1), R. No. 1001, 10Th Floor, E-2, Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant J L Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Ajay Singh, B-1, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi 110065 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Abjps-9222-J Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 06.12.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) By Raising Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)

Spicejet Ltd. shares on BSE on 17.03.2015 was Rs.22.88 per share, therefore, Fair Market Value on date of transfer as per section 56(2)(viii)(c) r.w.r. 11UA is Rs.22.88 per share. Thus, the AO made addition of Rs.798,97,95,628/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.12.2018 passed

Mahadevi, Kalaburgi vs. ITO, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 358/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Raghavendra
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Sanakari, Village Bhooda Noida vs. Ward 3(4) Sector 24 Noida, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1533/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1533/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sanakari, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 18, Village Bhooda, Noida, Ward-3(4), District Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Etcps4927M Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

dated 16th July, 3 Sanakari 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 the Act and 4 Sanakari also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Sukhbir Singh, Bahadurgarh, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 68(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 781/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devinder Kumar, Vs Pcit, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, Vpo Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djipk4264C

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Vinod, Faridabad vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 781/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devinder Kumar, Vs Pcit, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, Vpo Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djipk4264C

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Devinder Kumar, Faridabad vs. Principal Commissioner, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 781/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devinder Kumar, Vs Pcit, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, Vpo Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djipk4264C

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Kharak Singh, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Kharak Singh, Noida vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others

Kharak Singh, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 758/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viti)

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others ... short reasoning, the same would not amount to binding precedent. 6.7 The Ld. AR elaborated that the insertion of section 145A, section 145B, section 56(2)(viii) and section 57(iv) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 does not change the character of interest under section

Chander Bhan, Hansi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4112/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Chander Bhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 566/14, Jind Road, Ward-1, Hisar, Saniyan Mohalla, Haryana Hansi Distt., Hisar, Haryana Pan: Ayypb8380N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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 the Act and also referred to the decisions in the cases of Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others