← All Phrases

“compulsory acquisition”

Capital GainsSection 45(5)Section 45(5)516 judgments

The decision most relied on for compulsory acquisition is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on compulsory acquisition

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.

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).

Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO TDS
388 ITR 343 · 2016 · High Court
128
citing judgments

Interest paid on compensation or enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of land forms part of the compensation itself and is not taxable as interest income under section 56(2)(viii) or section 145A.

Sham Lal Narula (Dr.) v. CIT
53 ITR 151 · 1964 · Supreme Court
100
citing judgments

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

(supra), Rama Bai v. CIT
181 ITR 408 · 1990 · Supreme Court
84
citing judgments

Interest received on delayed payment or enhanced compensation awarded under compulsory acquisition is a revenue receipt and is liable to income tax.

Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others in CWP No. 15506 of 2013; Shri Puneet Singh vs. CIT
110 Taxmann.com 116 · 2019 · Reported
83
citing judgments

Interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation from compulsory acquisition of land is taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' in the year of receipt, as per the amended provisions, with a 50% deduction available under section 57(iv).

Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector
224 ITR 551 · 1997 · Supreme Court
75
citing judgments

Interest received as income on delayed payment of compensation under Sections 28 or 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is a taxable revenue receipt, chargeable to income tax under the head 'income from other sources'.

CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.
161 ITR 524 · 1986 · Supreme Court
71
citing judgments

Income does not arise or accrue when the right to receive payment or compensation is inchoate, contingent, or in dispute, as such a right does not create a debt. This principle determines the correct year of taxability, particularly for compensation under litigation.

Judgments citing compulsory acquisition

Yash Travels and Tours Private Limited, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 481/NAG/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Yash Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward–2(2), Nagpur F–5, Shrdha House, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kingsway, Nagpur–4440001. Nagpur–440001. [Pan: Aaacy3931D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(37)Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 96

record perused. The learned authorised representative (ld AR) of the assessee submits that the assessee company received compensation of Rs. 26.22 Crore, on compulsory acquisition of their land for the purpose of making National High Way No.7 from Nagpur to Hyderabad. Copy of award passed by Additional Commissioner Nagpur ... Crore and treated the compensation of Rs. 13.08 crore as income from other sources. The amount of compensation received on compulsory acquisition is exempt under section 10(37) of Income Tax Act (Act). The assessee by mistake in the return of income claimed the entire amount as exempt as agriculture

Communidade of Chicalim, Chicalim vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 207/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.207/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Comunidade Of Chicalim, Vs Acit Circle 2(1), Ground Floor, St Xavier Aaykar Bhavan, . Church Building, Edc, Patto, Chicalim-403802, Panjim South Goa,Goa. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaabc0196P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 139(5)Section 57Section 74

provisions of section57(iv) of the Act and also submitted a letter for allow ability of deduction, of interest received along with enhanced compulsory acquisition of land for the delay. The A.O dealt on the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act and observes that in the absence ... Comunidade of chicalim. qualifies on its merits and further CIT(A) sustained the denial of claim of deduction, of interest received along with enhanced compulsory acquisition of land for the delay u/sec57(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) find that the additional compensation received is on account of enhancement

Estee India Fund, Mauritius vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1955/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'D' : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 836/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of ₹22,43,934/- on account of interest received on enhanced compensation compulsory acquisition of agricultural land under the Land Acquisition Act, and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the said addition. The appellant submits that

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 835/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of ₹22,43,934/- on account of interest received on enhanced compensation compulsory acquisition of agricultural land under the Land Acquisition Act, and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the said addition. The appellant submits that

Dharmbati, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Inspector Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 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 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Land Acquisition Act. The assessee responded vide letter (copy at pages 3 -58 of Paper Book) that the assessee received enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land by Haryana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767/- which included interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition ... year of receipt as per section 45(5) of the Act. However, in the case of an individual or HUF such capital gain from compulsory acquisition of agricultural land being capital asset is exempt from tax under section 10(37) of the Act. 6.4 The Ld. AR pointed

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

authority. As per section 28 of KIAD Act, the State Government can acquire land for the purpose of development, and pay compensation for such compulsory acquisition. The Board cannot decide what land to acquire and how much to compensate the land owners. It is only when an area is declared

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

authority. As per section 28 of KIAD Act, the State Government can acquire land for the purpose of development, and pay compensation for such compulsory acquisition. The Board cannot decide what land to acquire and how much to compensate the land owners. It is only when an area is declared

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 1,57,87,650/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That ... erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 8,91,265/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That the learned

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 1,57,87,650/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That ... erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 8,91,265/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That the learned

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 1,57,87,650/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That ... erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 8,91,265/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That the learned

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 1,57,87,650/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That ... erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 8,91,265/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That the learned

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 1,57,87,650/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That ... erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 8,91,265/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That the learned

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 1,57,87,650/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That ... erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 8,91,265/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That the learned

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 1,57,87,650/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That ... erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 8,91,265/- representing interest received on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s 28 of Land Compensation Act' 1894 and eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 8.1. That the learned

Gobinda Kumura, Bangurkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Jharsuguda

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 609/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.609/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Gobinda Kumura, Vs Income Tax Officer, Jharsuguda Bangurkela, Balinga, Basundhara, Sundargarh Pan No. : Dkhpk 5459 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kr Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kr Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld Sr DR
Section 194A

that there are no interest portion and the entire compensation received by the assessee would not be taxable as the same is in the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land by Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. 7. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the bank account statement supplied by the assessee

Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd, Bathinda vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bathinda

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

ITA 54/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 10(37)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 194LSection 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 4Section 45(5)

obligation. The expression “claim” is wide enough to encompass the amount of compensation or consideration payable to an assessee, particularly in cases of compulsory acquisition. (vi) Further, under Section 14 read with Section 56(2)(viii), any income not falling under other specific heads shall be chargeable to tax under

Avijit Gorain, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 2398/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Avijit Gorain…………….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Jain Vinod & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Diamond Prestige Nirman, Suite 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Aqvpg8082F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Durgapur…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015– 16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & He Did Not File Any Return Of Income. As Per Information Received By The Assessing Officer, The Assessee Made Transactions In Selling Immovable Property Of Rs.89,46,452/- & Transfer Of Capital Assets Of Rs.31,97,560/-. Due To Absence Of Supporting Documents Or Explanations From The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Added Avijit Gorain Rs.1,21,44,012/- (Rs.89,46,452/- & Rs.31,97,560/-) By Passing An Order U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

Section 144Section 147Section 250

agricultural income were submitted to substantiate the claim of the assessee. Learned CIT(A) has further held that there is no evidence of compulsory acquisition as defined in swction 10(37), nor the assessee demonstrated that compensation was fixed by law. Before us the AR has brought the circular no.36/2016

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Manikandan, Chennai

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

capital asset, includes,- (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or (iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or - 6 -: ITA No.2986/Chny/2025 Manikandan (iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into

Anil Tuteja, Fatehabad vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

erred in holding that the assessment order requires to be revised u/s 263 since the interest received on enhanced compensation of compulsory acquisition of non capital asset agricultural land is taxable and the Ld. AO has erred to add the same. 1.4 The Worthy Pr. CIT has conducted the impugned ... declaring income of Rs. 7,81,320/- and claiming exemption of Rs. 1,05,10,592/- being interest received on enhanced compensation of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 16-18 of APB).  During AY 2012-13 i.e. FY 2011-12, agriculture land