“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 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shri Mohammed Dawood Sultan Abdul Kadar, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.25/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mohamed Dawood Sultan Abdul Income Tax, Circle 2, Kader, Kolikalpalayam, Thiruvarur, Trichy. Tamil Nadu 610 001. [Pan:Brdps5653L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sankaralingam, Cit (Retd.) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 23.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Land Acquisition Compensation Under Compulsory Acquisition By The Government Is Exempt Or Not.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sankaralingam, CIT (Retd.)

dated 23.09.2020 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. The only issue involved in this appeal is relating to the land acquisition compensation under compulsory acquisition by the Government is exempt or not. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 51 days in filing the appeal ... land which is not situated in specified urban area, is not regarded as a capital asset. Hence, capital gains arising from the transfer (including compulsory acquisition) of such agricultural land is not taxable. Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 inserted section 10(37) in the Act from 01.04.2005 to provide specific

Dr. L.S. Ravi Prakash, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 30/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 78

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

Biswajit Bose, New Panvel vs. Pr CIT -1, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and order of Ld

ITA 1322/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shree Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbiswajit Bose B103, Balaji Niwas, Plot No-107-108, Sector-8, New Panvel, Panvel-410206 Pan No. Acxpb9332K ....Appellant Pr Cit-1 Thane Room No-7, 6The Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-400604 ...Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma & S.SriramFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 263

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ganga Developers, Mumbai

ITA 2328/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shripavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit 27(1) R No.406, 4Th Floor, Tower M/S Ganga Developers Plot No. 219, Alal Asia, No.6, 11Th Road, Chembur, Vashi Railway Stn Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaafg 8230 C Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan, DR

Section 10(37)Section 11Section 143(3)Section 96

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that the compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land of Rs.69,92,42,974/- was not taxable and failing to appreciate that the award of compensation to the assessee was made under section ... replacing the earlier Act of 1894 which stood repealed. -The Act had following provisions with respect to the earlier Act of 1894 which governed Compulsory Acquisition of property prior to this Act: Section 114 (1) The Land Acquisition Act. 1 894 is hereby repealed (2) Save as otherwise provided

Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 887/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsmt. Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Flat No. 204, Grant Canyon, Opp. Hdfc Bank, Pali Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan: Acxpc0971B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-23(1)(5), Room No. 114, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 2(47)Section 54

capital asset, includes- i. the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset ; or ii. the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or ii. 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, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate

Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

lower authorities. In view of the above, we hold that the interest received by the assessee during the impugned year on the compulsory acquisition of its land u/« 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is in the nature of compensation and not interest which is taxable under the head income ... enhanced compensation is, not sustainable.” 13.1 Since as per the aforesaid Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling, interest received by the instant appellant on the compulsory acquisition of land u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is in the nature of compensation and not interest which is taxable under the head

E.Murugan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(30, Tambaram

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

ITA 2206/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2206/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 E. Murugan, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/91, Padavattamman Vs. Non Corporate Ward-22(3), Koil Street, Padur Post, Tambaram. Omr Road, Kazhipattur, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Cixpm-8913-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 54F

vide order dated 27.12.2016. :- 2 -: 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is assessment of Long Term Capital Gain on compulsory acquisition of land by Government under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Act No.34/2002) in the hands of the assessee alone instead ... many aspects to this issue those are I) that the land belongs to many co-owners and assessment cannot be made on the compulsory acquisition of this land in the hands of the assessee alone II) that the land acquired was compulsory acquisition under Tamil Nadu Highways

Indus Cityscapes, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1226/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Indus Cityscapes Constructions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., No. 5-C, Ega Trade Centre, Income Tax, 809, Poonamalle High Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan:Aabci2175A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai Dated 06.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Company Is Carrying Real Estate, Construction & Related Activities, Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 30.09.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.84,76,260/- & The Same Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)

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

Shri Ganadhiraj Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) -40, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5351/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 80P

Dnyaneshwar Shankar Ghorpade, Badlapur vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 7985/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Shri Shankar Rama Ghorpade Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Shiv Parvati Bangalow Katrap Gaon, Kulgaon, Badlapur Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (East)-421 503 (W), 421 301 Pan : Aehpg5210M Appellant Respondent Dnyaneshwar Shankar Ghorpade Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, (L/H Of Late Shankar Rama Ghorpade), Shiv Parvati Bangalow Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Katrap Gaon, Kulgaon, Badlapur (W), 421 301 (East)-421 503 Pan : Aehpg5210M Appellant Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

account of capital gain on sale of part of TDRs received by the assessee from Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council (KBMC) as compensation on compulsory acquisition of assessee’s agricultural land has been challenged. And that the lower authorities have rejected the contention that the said short term capital gain ... land that was surrendered to KBMC was an urban agricultural land and further stated that as it was compulsory acquisition by KBMC, short term capital gain would not attract in the case of the assessee. The Ld.AR also stated that the assessee had not incurred any cost to acquire

Subhash Maruti Ghorpade, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6948/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Shankar Rama Ghorpade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1168/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Subhash Maruti Ghorpade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1167/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

M/S. Hanumanthappa Chandrashekar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1223/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 46Section 96

addition in the return of income filed by the assessee. Before the CIT(A), the assessee sought exemption of capital gain arising out of compulsory acquisition of his non-agricultural property acquired by KIADB for BMRCL, which is acquired under KIAD Act. The CIT(A) held that the A.O. cannot ... revised return. However, before the CIT(A), the assessee has made a claim that the capital gain arises out of compulsory acquisition of land by KIADB for BMRCL project is not taxable though it was acquired under KIAD Act, 1966. The CIT(A) though observed that the assessee cannot make

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

shown Income from Business and Capital Gains on sale of property. 7. During the year under consideration the appellant received the compensation under compulsory acquisition of his plot at Worli. The said compensation consist of interest component on the originally awarded amount the appellant has 1/3rd share of the property ... anything contained in sub-section (1), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset, being a transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which was determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 201/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 11Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 96

Karnataka under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("RFCTLARR Act") and the compensation received through compulsory acquisition is not taxable income in the hands of Appellant Company. 6) The Ld. PCIT has also failed to consider that the CBDT Circular No. 36/2016

Umesh B Balikai, Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 505/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 253Section 264Section 57

case. Proper opportunity of being heard has not been given by said authority. 2. The assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition which is part of compensation and is exempt from tax. Hence TDS made on the same to be refunded. 2 ITA No.505/Bang/2022. Sri.Umesh B.Balikai ... interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition is exempt from tax. However if it is treated as income then deduction u/s 57(iv) to the extent of 50% of the interest ought to have been given by the PCIT since interest related to more than 2 years. 4. The assessee

Leila Advani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MishraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

total income of the assessee at Rs 23, 15, 90,770/- 5. During the year under consideration the appellant received the compensation under compulsory acquisition of her plot at Worli. The said compensation consist of interest component on the originally awarded amount the appellant has 1/3rd share of the property ... anything contained in sub-section (1), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset, being a transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which was determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India

Wep Peripherals Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

shall include all profits of the company up to the. date of liquidation, 4 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