9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 - PATIL N. K. J S.J. Puranik for the petitioner. Smt. Asha M. Kumbargerimath, H.E. Betsur, Suresh P. Huddegaddi and Mahantesh Hosur for the respondents. JUDGMENT N. K. Patil J.- In all these 15 civil revision petitions the petitioner being aggrieved by the common order dated June 8, 2004 passed in Execution Case Nos. 9/04, 10/04, 11/04, 18/04, 34/03, 41/03, 42/03, 43/03, 50/03 and 51/03,78/04, 79/04, 80/04, 81/04 and 82/04 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharwar, has presented the instant civil revision petitions. 2. The respondents herein filed execution petitions on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dharwar, as referred to above. The said matter had come up for cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector [1997] 224 ITR 551 (SC) ; [1997] 10 SCC 243 and submitted that it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income-tax. When once the claimants are made to pay the income-tax, that portion of the amount should be deducted and thereafter the remaining amount may be paid to the claimants as provided under the relevant pro-visions of the Income-tax Act. Inadvertently, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the Government pleader appearing for the respondent-LAO, have not brought to the notice of the court below, the settled proposition of law as referred to above. Further, he submitted that following the judgment of the apex court and the Division B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not exceed one thousand rupees. 7. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government pleader, appearing for the Assistant Commissioner/LAO, that all the claim-ants who have received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 are liable to pay income-tax towards belated payment of interest. It is significant to note that the trial court has placed reliance on the judgment of apex court reported in CIT v. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] (1) LACC 339 ; [1996] 219 ITR 544 and another judgment reported in Rana Pratap Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer [1998] Tax LR 1032 (AP) ; [1998] (2) LACC 674 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court while dealing with section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and section 194 of the Income-tax Act. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inition of interest. It would mean that the interest received as income on the delayed payment of the compensation determined under section 28 or 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is a taxable event. Therefore, it is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under section 4 of the Income-tax Act. 9. After careful perusal of the judgment of the apex court as referred to above, it is clear that the apex court has held in unequivocal terms that the interest received on belated payment of compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income-tax and it is income and the claimants are liable to pay the tax as provided under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. 10. The execution court further committed a grave error in not considering the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
