← 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

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 338/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

form appears to be an inclusive definition the words "sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law" are illustrative and that the definition is exhaustive. So construed, unless it is a transaction of sale, exchange or relinquishment ... asset or the extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition, the transaction could not be treated as a "transfer" of a "capital asset". The lease deed of the type with which we are now concerned is such that it cannot be treated as amounting to a transfer

Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Chengalput vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 870/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

form appears to be an inclusive definition the words "sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law" are illustrative and that the definition is exhaustive. So construed, unless it is a transaction of sale, exchange or relinquishment ... asset or the extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition, the transaction could not be treated as a "transfer" of a "capital asset". The lease deed of the type with which we are now concerned is such that it cannot be treated as amounting to a transfer

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

case and in law and while considering the legal issues the assessee was entitled to exemption that is of interest received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The legal issues has been decided by various judicial authorities. lt be held accordingly ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the entire interest received u/s 28 on the account of compulsory acquisition of agri. land is not only exempt u/s 10(37) but also exempt u/s 96 of the RECTLLAR Act,2013 following the CBDT Circular

Mahendra Singh Chawla, Indore vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 245/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

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

Shuvro Chattaraj, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

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

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Ashok Narendra Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3373/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2018-19 Acit, Circle – 19(1) Ashok Narendra Mehta, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 132, 13Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Siddhesh Darshan, Mumbai. 10Th Khetwadi Main Road, Khetwadi, Mumbai Pan : Aivpm9318A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

land or building or both' is well recognized under the I.T. Act. Sec. 54D deals with certain cases in which capital gain on compulsory acquisition of land and building is charged. Sub-sec.(1) of sec. 54D opens with : "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital ... gain arises from the transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law of a capital asset, being land or building or any right in land or building, forming part of an industrial undertaking…..". It is palpable from sec. 54D that 'land or building' is distinct from 'any right

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)

both in law and, on facts in upholding an addition an addition of Rs. 84,38,290/- of 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. 3.1 That while

Raghu Belagodu(HUF), Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru - 2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 43Section 47Section 96

assessee had received Page 2 of 10 compensation of Rs. 3.32 Crores from M/s. Karnataka Industrial Regional Development Board (KIADB) on compulsory acquisition of land and claimed the same as exempt relying on the CBDT Circular No. N.36/2016 dated 25.10.2016. The Assessing Officer accepted the claim of the assessee

Jyoti Record Mfg Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore, Banglore

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

ITA 2592/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)

undertaken by the financial institutions to recover their loans which is not subjected to capital gain tax. In this respect, assessee further submitted that compulsory acquisition of the asset of the assessee on account of recovery of loans evidently reflected the financial crisis, assessee was going through which also added

Mahesh Chand, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result both the appeals being ITA no

ITA 1600/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

That the order of Honorable CIT(A) is bad in law as Cash has been deposited from the amount received as Compensation on Compulsory Acquisition which is exempt U/s 10 (37) of Income Tax Act. 5 That the order of Honorable

Mahesh Chand, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result both the appeals being ITA no

ITA 1599/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

That the order of Honorable CIT(A) is bad in law as Cash has been deposited from the amount received as Compensation on Compulsory Acquisition which is exempt U/s 10 (37) of Income Tax Act. 5 That the order of Honorable

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

being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu undivided family or individual or a parent of his; 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

Vaidya Srikantappa Sadashivaiah Srikanth, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore- 1, Bangalore

ITA 200/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(5)Section 54

examination of the assessment record, the following were noticed: • That the assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. under capital gain on account of compulsory acquisition of property situated at Bommanahalli, Bengaluru under the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (RFCTLAAR ... acquired under RECTLAAR Act, 2013. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee of Rs.11,98,36,958/- of capital gain on account of compulsory acquisition is not in order and is taxable u/s 45(5) of the IT Act 1961. • The assessment order under consideration was passed without carrying

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

Till date I have not been informed regarding change of the jurisdiction. 5) The interest income received by me on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land by Government for Sardar Sarovar Nigam was exempt from tax as held by various courts. 6) Both the assessment order ... filed u/s 139. It is also claimed that the interest on enhanced compensation of agricultural land was granted by Government of Gujarat on the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land(claimed to be situated near Dabhoi-survey no.1536) which land was co-owned by the assessee along with his three brothers

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

concessions are given, provided the agriculture land was demonstrated to have been used for agriculture purpose in the immediate two preceding years of such compulsory acquisition and moreover, the test laid out by the Honourable Supreme Court, to claim a land 39 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 transferred

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1625/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

concessions are given, provided the agriculture land was demonstrated to have been used for agriculture purpose in the immediate two preceding years of such compulsory acquisition and moreover, the test laid out by the Honourable Supreme Court, to claim a land 39 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 transferred

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

concessions are given, provided the agriculture land was demonstrated to have been used for agriculture purpose in the immediate two preceding years of such compulsory acquisition and moreover, the test laid out by the Honourable Supreme Court, to claim a land 39 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 transferred

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

concessions are given, provided the agriculture land was demonstrated to have been used for agriculture purpose in the immediate two preceding years of such compulsory acquisition and moreover, the test laid out by the Honourable Supreme Court, to claim a land 39 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 transferred

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Lakshmi Narayana Turairao, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54B

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

Kaushlya Chaudhary, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon, Gurugram

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1395/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 234BSection 28Section 56Section 57

Land Acquisition Act 1894 of Rs. 2,76,71,650/- 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. 3. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 2 and without