Section 145B(1) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 145B(1) is Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements (1 SCC 368), cited in 146 of the 35 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 145B(1)

Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements
1 SCC 368 · 2005 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

When a statute mandates a specific procedure for an act and imposes severe consequences for non-compliance, that requirement is mandatory and must be strictly followed. This principle underscores the strict construction of taxing statutes, requiring compliance in the prescribed manner and no other way.

In\nSedco Forex International Drilling Inc. v. CIT
279 ITR 310 · 2005 · Supreme Court
116
citing judgments

A tax amendment explicitly stating an effective date applies prospectively from that date. Even if an amendment is labelled 'for removal of doubts,' it cannot be presumed retrospective if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood.

27\n08.2013\n•\nManjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India in High Court
237 Taxmann 116 · 2016 · High Court
101
citing judgments
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.

PCIT v. JSW Steel Ltd.
115 Taxmann.com 165 · 2020 · High Court
92
citing judgments

Reassessment initiated under Section 148 is invalid if the reasons recorded for reopening incorrectly state that no return of income was filed by the assessee when a return had, in fact, been filed. Such a fundamental factual error vitiates the entire basis for the reassessment proceedings.

Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Incometax/Income-tax Officer v. Mylan Laboratories Ltd.
137 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · High Court
60
citing judgments
Shantai Exim Ltd. v. CIT
88 Taxmann.com 361 · 2017 · ITAT
47
citing judgments
19-23 of APB): UOI v. Hari Singh
302 CTR 458 · 2018 · Supreme Court
46
citing judgments

Additional amounts, solatium, and interest on excess compensation under the Land Acquisition Act form part of enhanced compensation under section 45(5) and are taxable in the year of receipt. If TDS is deducted, the Assessing Officer must determine the nature of the land acquired and the taxability of the compensation or enhanced compensation.

Union of India v. Hari Singh & Ors.\n
408 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
44
citing judgments

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and cannot be taxed as 'Income from Other Sources' under Section 56(2)(viii). This decision reaffirms the principles laid down in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF).

Mahenderpal Narang v. CBDT CWP 17971 of
110 Taxmann.com 16 · 2019 · Reported
28
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 145B(1)

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

ITA 54/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 10(37)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 194LSection 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 4Section 45(5)

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 603/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 576/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 575/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 498/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 455/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 335/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 332/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

BIMLA DEVI,JAGADHRI vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 328/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

JAGPAL,GURUGRAM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2092/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)

GURMEET SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1287/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 194LSection 2Section 2(24)Section 28Section 4Section 45(5)

KUSUM CHAUHAN ,JAGADHARI HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 YAMUNANAGAR , JAGADHARI

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1310/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Dalal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 56(2)

BIR SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3969/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)

DALJIT KAUR,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 632/CHANDI/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(37)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 253Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

BHAG SINGH, PANCHKULA,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD NO 3, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 907/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 145B(1)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

NARDEV SINGH,MANAKPUR,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1038/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 147Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2