9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 35,15,954/- u/s 56 (2)(viii) of Income Tax Act ignoring legal position that said Interest received U / s 28 of Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and thereby exempt u/s.10(37) of IT Act. Hence, the impugned addition may please be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the law laid down by Hon Supreme Court in Ghanshyam HUF 315 ITR 1 and Govindbahi Mamaiya 367 ITR 498 that the Interest received U/s.28 of Land Acquisition Act is part & parcel of enhanced compensation. 3. Appellant prays for just and equitable relief. 4. Appellant prays for cancellation/reduction of Interest charged u/s. 234B. 5. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, clarify, modify, take Additional Ground/ s and/ or wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not taxable in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Rajkot Vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya, which was delivered on 04.09.2014 (2014 STPL 599 SC). The Assessing Officer took note of the amended section 56(2) w.e.f. 01.04.2010 and also to section 145A of the Act and held that the interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation, was taxable in the year of receipt only. He then referred to the Circular No.05/2010 dated 03.06.2010 wherein the provisions for taxation of interest received on delayed compensation or enhanced compensation was clarified. The Assessing Officer also observed that the deduction of 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d similar issue and held that the interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was capital receipt and the interest received under section 34 was revenue receipt and exigible to tax. 8. The Ld. DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the Authorities below. 9. On perusal of the record and after hearing both the Authorized Representatives, the issue which arises in the present appeal is with regard to the taxability of compensation received by the assessee which has been taxed in the hands of the assessee under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act on which deduction of 50% has been allowed under section 57(iv) of the Act. The case of the assessee before Authorities below and even before us is that the assessee had re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of Bikram Singh & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (supra) was not considered. However, we find that there is no conflict of law laid down in both the cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) has clearly marked the distinction between the interest received u/s. 23(1A) and 23(2) r.w.s. 28 of the L.A. Act vis-à-vis interest on delayed payment of compensation u/s. 34 of the L.A. Act. The Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bikram Singh & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (supra) has held that the interest received u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
