← 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

Paras and Shubham Chaudhary Legal Heir of Kanhaiya Lal, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1236/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta & Shri Mukesh Aggarwal,CAsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 18Section 28Section 4Section 5

Acquisition Collector announced the Award, bearing No. 12 dated 10.12.2002, he determined the market value @ Rs.6 lacs per acre and granted 30% solatium for compulsory acquisition of the land. This Rs.6 lacs has been enhanced by the Addl. District Judge on a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition A.Y.2007-08 ... takes care of a situation - where the capital gains arise from the transfer of a capital asset, being a transfer by way of compulsory acquisition and the compensation for such transfer stands enhanced in stages by any court, tribunal or authority. In such a situation, the capital gains so arising

Ashok Gurunath Patil, Latur vs. ITO Ward1(1), Latur

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

ITA 594/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.594/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Ashok Gurunath Patil, Ito, Ward 1(1), Latur A/P Masobavadi, Khed, Nilanga, Latur-413522 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Bihpp0618K अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.08.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 27.02.2018. 2. Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 123 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Has Been Filed & Placed At Page No. 24-26 Of The Appeal Citing The Main Reason For The Delay, That The Assessee Was Not Aware Of Passing Of The Impugned Order As 2 The Tax Consultant Registered The E-Mail Id Of His Younger Son & The E-Mail Account Was Not In Use. After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative (Dr) & Perusing The Records We Find That The Sufficient Cause Prevented The Assessee From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit & The Delay Is Not Intentional. Therefore In The Larger Interest Of Justice & Also Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 123 Days & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking cognizance of the fact that the appellant did not offer the interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of property to taxation under a bonafide belief that same is not taxable. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking cognizance of the fact that the issue of taxability 3 of interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of property is a debatable issue and no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances

Arjan Lila Goraniya, Porbandar vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Porbandar

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

ITA 378/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.378/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Arjan Lila Goraniya Vs. Ito Ward 2 (4), Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar - 360575 Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ ./Pan/Gir No.: Bbwpg1554P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld
Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

sale consideration received was sale consideration received from Reliance Infrastructure Limited Reliance Infrastructure Limited at Rs. 67,95,024/-, on 16.03.2012 on 16.03.2012, by compulsory acquisition of land compulsory acquisition of land. The assessee submitted before the Bench, the The assessee submitted before the Bench, the bank statement and other ... documents to prove this fact that assessee had and other documents to prove this fact that assessee had received the amount by way of compulsory acquisition of land by Reliance received the amount by way of compulsory acquisition of land by Reliance received the amount by way of compulsory acquisition

Ram Lakhan Dwivedi, Maihar vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 1, Satna

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

ITA 180/JAB/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 Ram Lakhan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer 139, Rohaniya Khurd, Pakaria, Ward-1, Satna Distt-Maihar-485773. Income Tax Office, Civil Lines Chowk, Satna- 485001. Pan:Exmpd6359C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad , Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad , Sr. DR-1
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 271ASection 69A

investment made in the bank account in the form of term deposit was out of the consideration received by the assessee on account of compulsory acquisition of land. Looking to the facts of the present case, I am of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned

Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 2137/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Balusamy, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234Section 251Section 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

Veeraswamy Jotheeswaran, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 1756/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Malini vs. ACIT, supra, on identical facts had held that interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of land is akin to the compensation for compulsory acquisition of land which is exempt from taxation by virtue of section 96 of RFCTLARR ... well as case law relied on by the assessee. There is no dispute that the assessee has received :- 8 -: interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land for the assessment year under consideration. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice about the provisions

Phool Singh, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-1, Hisar

ITA 1520/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.1517/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2015-16)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Subsequently, rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee on the basis of that interest receipt from HUDA on compulsory acquisition of land compensation is not taxable and reliance was placed on few decisions upon Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Tribunal, however, vide order

Phool Singh, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-1, Hisar

ITA 1519/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.1517/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2015-16)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Subsequently, rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee on the basis of that interest receipt from HUDA on compulsory acquisition of land compensation is not taxable and reliance was placed on few decisions upon Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Tribunal, however, vide order

Phool Singh, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-1, Hisar

ITA 1518/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.1517/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2015-16)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Subsequently, rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee on the basis of that interest receipt from HUDA on compulsory acquisition of land compensation is not taxable and reliance was placed on few decisions upon Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Tribunal, however, vide order

Phool Singh, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-1, Hisar

ITA 1517/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.1517/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2015-16)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Subsequently, rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee on the basis of that interest receipt from HUDA on compulsory acquisition of land compensation is not taxable and reliance was placed on few decisions upon Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Tribunal, however, vide order

Phool Singh, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-1, Hisar

ITA 1516/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.1517/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2015-16)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Subsequently, rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee on the basis of that interest receipt from HUDA on compulsory acquisition of land compensation is not taxable and reliance was placed on few decisions upon Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Tribunal, however, vide order

Lata Pralhad Deshmukh, Nashik vs. CIT(A), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2035/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(1)Section 154

year 2021-22 relevant to assessment year 2022-23 had received an amount of Rs.2,22,26,400/- from the Nashik Municipal Corporation against compulsory acquisition of their land for road widening, the details of which are as under: No. Details of property Amount of consideration (Rs.) 1 S.No. 201/C/2 ... appeal proceedings, appellant has submitted that during the F.Y. 2021- 22, appellant had received consideration from Nasik Municipal Corporation against compulsory acquisition of land for road widening. The details of the property for which compensation was received is as under: Sr. No. Details of property Amount of consideration

Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 56(2)(viii)

NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the interest component received was inextricably related to the compensation received from Special Tahsildar on account of compulsory Acquisition and ought to have appreciated that the quantification of the said amount being part of the order of the competent authority, there cannot ... present case inasmuch it was argued that interest component received was inarguably related to the compensation received from Special Tahsildar on account of compulsory Acquisition and any attempt by the AO in bifurcating the total amount as exempt and taxable would not stand the test of law. 15. Further

Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

sundry creditors of the trade. It was submitted that of 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui the total receipt on account of compulsory acquisition of property of Rs.2.1385 Hectares amounting to Rs.21,50,00,000/-, the share of the assessee was Rs.11,36,57,938/-, (for 1.135 Hectares) that ... account, besides a receipt of Rs.4,65,400/- from LIC. It was further submitted, that since the amount had been received as compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, as per section 10(37) of the Act, it was not a part of total income and was therefore exempt from

Nagamma, Raichur vs. Income Tax Office-Ward 1, Raichur

ITA 549/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(2)

from 01.04.2001 and it was claimed to be as Rs.20 lakhs. The AO noted that as per the compensation paid by the Government for compulsory acquisition as in which land sold by assessee was situated. The compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre was declared on 06.08.2006. The claim that

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 263

erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that interest awarded on enhanced compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is chargeable to tax. (vii)The Id. PCIT erred on facts as also in law in setting aside the assessment order dated ... directing the assessing officer to pass a fresh assessment on the issue related to interest awarded on enhanced compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another, as appeal is against the validity of revisional jurisdiction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

56. As a result, as regards the issue of allowance/disallowance of

ITA 1099/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

capital gains tax, since an amalgamation does not involve exchange or relinquishment of the assets or the amalgamation of any right therein or the compulsory acquisition under any law. It does not involve any exchange either within the legal meaning of that term. Thus merger does not involve an exchange ... capital asset, includes,- 1. The sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or 2. The extinguishment of any rights therein, or 3. The compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or (iv)...". Thus, upon merger of CFCL Technologies into CFCL Ventures, CFCL's investment in shares of CFCL Technologies will

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Kota

56. As a result, as regards the issue of allowance/disallowance of

ITA 1098/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

capital gains tax, since an amalgamation does not involve exchange or relinquishment of the assets or the amalgamation of any right therein or the compulsory acquisition under any law. It does not involve any exchange either within the legal meaning of that term. Thus merger does not involve an exchange ... capital asset, includes,- 1. The sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or 2. The extinguishment of any rights therein, or 3. The compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or (iv).... Thus, upon merger of CFCL Technologies into CFCL Ventures, CFCL's investment in shares of CFCL Technologies will

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

ITA 1097/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

capital gains tax, since an amalgamation does not involve exchange or relinquishment of the assets or the amalgamation of any right therein or the compulsory acquisition under any law. It does not involve any exchange either within the legal meaning of that term. Thus merger does not involve an exchange ... capital asset, includes,- 1. The sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or 2. The extinguishment of any rights therein, or 3. The compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or (iv)...." Thus, upon merger of CFCL Technologies into CFCL Ventures, CFCL's investment in shares of CFCL Technologies will

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Kota

ITA 1091/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

capital gains tax, since an amalgamation does not involve exchange or relinquishment of the assets or the amalgamation of any right therein or the compulsory acquisition under any law. It does not involve any exchange either within the legal meaning of that term. Thus merger does not involve an exchange ... capital asset, includes,- 1. The sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or 2. The extinguishment of any rights therein, or 3. The compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or (iv)...." Thus, upon merger of CFCL Technologies into CFCL Ventures, CFCL's investment in shares of CFCL Technologies will