← 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. Ozone Urban Infra Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, Circel-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 225/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Tds, No.30, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru North, Circle – 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 042. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecm 5394 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

income-tax at source from interest. Under this new section tax deduction at source is permissible in respect of interest on compensation on compulsory acquisition of land and also accrued on enhanced compensation under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act where the total income assessable to tax exceeds taxable

Smt Munilakshamamma, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 880/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.T.Srinivas Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45Section 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

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 312/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 311/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 310/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 309/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 308/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

K. G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 307/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

Ivor D'Mello (Legal Heir of Late Ettie B. D'Mello), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4470/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Vipul B. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi
Section 50CSection 54E

land or building or both’ is well recognized under the I.T. Act. Sec. 54D deals with certain - cases in which capital gain ot compulsory acquisition of land and building is charged. Sub-sec.(1) of sec. 54D opens with : “Subject to the provisions of subsection (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 Jrom sec. 54D that ‘land or building’ is distinct from ‘any Jight in land

Mustafa Khaleel, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 698/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 96

No.36 of 2016 F.No.225/S8/2016-ITA-II dated 25-10-2016, wherein, it is stated that "As no distinction has been made between compensation received for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and non- agricultural land in the matter of providing an exemption from Mustafa Khaleel, Bangalore Page 3 of 10 income ... exemption provided under the existing provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. This has created uncertainty in the matter of taxability of compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land, especially those relating to the acquisition of non-agricultural land. The matter has been examined by the Board and it is hereby

M/S. Devanam Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2644/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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

M/S Mitchell Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1718/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri K Gopal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54E

capital asset is defined as including the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any right therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law. The word "property", used in section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, is a word of the widest amplitude

Tree Hill Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

Shri Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54B

concerned, the assessee claimed deduction under section 10(37) of the Act. Section 10(37) of the Act provides for exemption when there is compulsory acquisition of agricultural land which is located in an urban area. One of the conditions for application of 10(37) of the Act is that

Sri Hanumanthiah, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 205/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 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

M/S Assetz Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the grounds 3

ITA 563/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
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

M/S Maharishi Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 916/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

resident, any sum, being in the nature of compensation or the enhanced compensation or the consideration or the enhanced consideration on account of compulsory acquisition, under any law for the time being in force, of any immovable property (other than agricultural land) shall, deduct TDS at the rate ... payment for surrender of Tenancy rights are not on account of compulsory acquisition u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Income tax Act 1961. 10. Upon careful consideration, I note that the transaction was entered into financial year 2011-12 as the deed of conveyance is dated 21.02.2012. Assessee has also

Shri Krishna Prasad Mikklineni, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 929/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, D.R
Section 53A

relinquishment of the asset; or Dr. Krishna Prasad Mikkilineni, Bangalore Page 7 of 10 (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

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-It-1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7269/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Proceeding

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Misra, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, CIT- D.R

Misra, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Shailja Rai, CIT- D.R. INTERIM ORDER During the course of argument undisputed fact has come on record that during compulsory acquisition of the property i.e. plot No.50 & 51 owned by the assessee, which is subject matter of the present appeals

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Leila Advani, Mumbai

ITA 3286/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Proceeding

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Misra, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, CIT- D.R

Misra, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Shailja Rai, CIT- D.R. INTERIM ORDER During the course of argument undisputed fact has come on record that during compulsory acquisition of the property i.e. plot No.50 & 51 owned by the assessee, which is subject matter of the present appeals