9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the compensation received by the assessee in lieu of damage caused to the land was revenue receipt. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The impugned addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted because the amount received towards the damage to the land belonging to the assessee cannot be said to be a revenue receipts. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 676/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - Sh. N. K. Saini, J. For The Assessee : Sh. Ashish Singhal Smt. Ekita Gupta, CAs For The Revenue : Sh. J. P. Citandraker, Sr. DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27.11.2014 of ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad. 2. The only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural land situated at Village: Rasoolpur, Sikroad, Pargana: Dasna, Distt: Ghaziabad. During the A.Y. 2010-11, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. had laid down the underground pipe-line. The land of assessee was in the way of pipe-line path to be laid down. For digging of land and laying the pipe-line, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. had paid ₹ 4,75,980/- to the assessee. This amount is received for granting the right to use the land for laying the pipeline and damages done to the land. The land is still owned by the assessee and there is no transfer of any asset. Therefore, compensation received by the assessee is not eligible for capital gain tax. As per the Assessment Order, the amount received is for the loss of futu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt not chargeable to tax. Also, a letter received from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is enclosed herewith, which shows that the amount of ₹ 4,70,800/- had been paid as compensation for the land. The amount received as the compensation received for damages done to the land and granting the right to use the land for laying the pipeline below the land of the assessee. Therefore, it is a capital receipt in nature and not taxable. It is submitted that appeal may please be decided in the view of above facts and cases decided by Hon ble ITAT Ahmadabad. With reference to the above appeal, it is further submitted that as per Section 10(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962:- Where in the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed before the ITAT by the department against order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue before ITAT was not whether these receipts were of capital nature or revenue nature. The department having accepted the receipt to be of capital nature (by not filing appeal against the CIT(A) s order), the ITAT modified the CIT(A) s order that these receipts were not subject to capital gain tax as no capital asset had been transferred. In the present case, the assessing officer has held them to be revenue receipts of casual and non-recurring nature. I concur with the view of the assessing officer and uphold the addition. Ground of appeal no. 1 is therefore rejected. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. During the course of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unicipal Council have restored the land belonging to the assessee to its original position. The fact that Sahara India has removed the equipments from the plot belonging to the assessee, it cannot be said that the damage caused to the land has been set right by restoring the land to its original position. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the amount of ₹ 8,42,000/- received by the assessee towards the damage to the land belonging to the assessee cannot be said to be revenue receipt. The fact that the land has remained with the assessee and that the assessee in future may earn profits from the said land cannot be a ground to hold that the compensation received by the assessee in lieu of damage caused to the land was revenue recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
