“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

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

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

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

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

The DCIT (Int.Taxa.), Vadodara vs. Shri Ajoy Kanaiyalal Khandheria, Vadodara

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

ITA 451/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee also claimed exemption of Rs.6,22,38,075/- under section 10(37) of the Act on account of compensation received for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land situated at Survey Nos. 56/1 and 56/2, Dholakuva, Gandhinagar. The brief facts relating to land and its dispute are summarized below form ... referred Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 to the provisions of Section 10(37), which exempts capital gains arising from the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, including any compensation or consideration enhanced by courts. However, the CIT(A) held that the interest on FDs made

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. Surjit Singh Amrik Singh Saini, Mumbai

ITA 4029/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CA &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

shall include all profits of the company up to the date of liquidation, but shall not, where the liquidation is consequent on the compulsory acquisition of its undertaking by the Government or a corporation owned or controlled by the Government under any law for the time being in force, include

Desh Mitter Gaind, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panchkula, Haryana

ITA 454/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 48Section 50C

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 (iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into, or is treated

Netrananda Nayak, Puri vs. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri

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

ITA 274/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Netrananda Netrananda Nayak, Nayak, At: At: Vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Income Tax Officer, Puri Khandiabandha, Khandiabandha, Po: Po: Word, Puri. Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Pan/Gir No. No.Ajspn 1567 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niranjan Panda, Ca Niranjan Panda, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10186/2019-20 20 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Niranjan Niranjan Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Panda, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 148

that the learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC is grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,03,68.4801 as Long Term Capital Gain, on compulsory acquisition of land by Govt of Odisha, ignoring the fact that the said land was rural agricultural land situated beyond two kilometers from the Municipal ... towards Long Term Capital Gain ignoring the fact that the said amount was received as compensation from Govt of Odisha on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land used for agricultural purpose which was exempted U/s- 10(37) of the I,T.Act 1961. 4. For that even otherwise the learned CIT (Appeal

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 3/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh Ramchandra DakeFor Respondent: \nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu undivided family or individual or a parent of his;\n(iii) such transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which is determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India

Ahamedpillai Ahamedkutty, Ernakulam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam

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

ITA 603/COCH/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

individual. The assessee has received compensation of Rs.60,38,000 during the financial year under consideration from Cochin Metro with respect to compulsory acquisition of 29.95 acres of land. The assessee has filed return of income on 16thFebruary, 2015. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing 2 ITA No.603/Coch/2023

Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 451/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Mandir Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Gandhinagar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"].

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee also claimed exemption of Rs.6,22,38,075/- under Section 10(37) of the Act on account of compensation received for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land situated at Survey Nos.56/1 and 56/2, Dholakuva, Gandhinagar. The brief facts relating to land and its dispute are summarized below form ... Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela vs. ITO Asst. Year: 2012-13 9 to the provisions of Section 10(37), which exempts capital gains arising from the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, including any compensation or consideration enhanced by courts. However, the CIT(A) held that the interest on FDs made

Shastri Lal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3918/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Dilbag Singh, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Patna Bakhtiyarpur Tollway Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 182/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Patna Bakhtiyarpur Tollway Vs. Acit Circle-16(2) Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Aafcp9577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ar Revenue By: Ms.K.Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 31.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms.K.Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

assessee as it would have been computed before applying the said proviso; (2) "sold" includes a transfer by way of exchange or a compulsory acquisition under any law for the time being in force but does not include a transfer, in a scheme of amalgamation, of any asset

Pyramid Developers, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Comm. of Income Tax Circle 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2409/MUM/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpyramid Developers, 2Nd Floor, Sharda Bhavan, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 400 005, Pan: Aaifp1958J ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 32(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chajed a/w VeetragFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 43CSection 53A

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 (iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into, or is treated 4 Pyramid Developers

Uddhav Dattu Marathe HUF, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1514/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1514/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Uddhav Dattu Marathe Vs. Ito, Ward- 2(2), Huf, Jalgaon. Prop. Of Shri Govind Prabhu Trading Co., At Post Pimpalgaon Hareshwar, Tal. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon- 424203. Pan : Aaahu6015M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte On The Ground That There Was Non Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee To The Various Notices Issued By Him

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

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

dated 25.10.2018. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has received interest on compensation from compulsory acquisition of land. Total interest received was Rs.3,25,58,865/- and after giving deduction of 50% u/s 57, the amount of Rs.1

Kuldeep, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2458/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

collecting hire charges on daily basis. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee has also received compensation on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. The assessee filed return of income in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Jagjit Singh Kataria, Sonepat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1245/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Assessee to furnish details and to substantiate his claim. The Assessee submitted before the A.O. that he has received interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agriculture land u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is exempt income. The Assessee has also produced copy of Khasra/Khatauni and Land

Land Acquisition Office, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, (TDS), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 643/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Dcit (Tds), Land Acquisition Officer, Huda Complex, Sector-14, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan :Rtklo0706G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 201(1)(A)Section 28Section 34Section 56

Land Acquisition Office and is governed by the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The LAO acquired land from the land owners under compulsory acquisition for public purposes as per the directions of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The land owners got enhanced compensation which was awarded by the court ... fall within the ambit of agricultural land and thus constitute 'capital asset' under section 2(14) of the Act. Compulsory acquisition of capital asset under any law is 'transfer under section 2(47)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, any profit or gain arising from transfer of such a capital asset

Nishant Choudhary, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2863/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aempc0965Q Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana Dated 13.02.2019 In Case No. 255/Rot/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28

ITO, Ward-5, Hisar vs. Vijay Kumar, Hisar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4167/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshito, Vs. Vijay Kumar, Ward-5, S/O Shri Dev Raj Gpa, Hisar H. No. 1663, Ue-Ii, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afcpk9097E Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Aman Garg, Adv Shri Aayush Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Mritunjay Prasad Dwivedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mritunjay Prasad Dwivedi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 159(1)Section 159(4)

determining the total income at Rs 2,41,16,145/-. Smt Savitri Devi got certain compensation along with interest on compulsory acquisition of land by Government of Haryana. She expired on 10.10.2008. Shri Vijay Kumar Garg was General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of Smt Savitri Devi. Smt Savitri Devi

3A Composites India Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4096/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43(6)Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM

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

Land Acquisition Act 1894 of Rs. 4,78,95,440/- received by the appellant during the year, which was part of enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances ... integral part of enhanced compensation, and thus, is a capital receipt, which is exempt u/s. 10 (37) of the Act being received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land by the State Government. 6. The Ld AR has submitted that the enhanced compensation awarded by the appellate authority/ court