9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under an Award after the owner is denied ownership/possession of land, building etc pursuant to compulsory acquisition under Act 30 of 2013. The exemption granted by the Parliament, this Court is of the view, is denied through an impermissible interpretation adopted by the first respondent. The point is covered in favour of petitioner both by the precedent and circular No.30/2016. - The writ petition is accordingly allowed. - WP(C). No. 1908 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2019 - MR S. V. BHATTI, J. For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS, SHRI. ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS, SHRI. SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA, SRI. ABRAHAM MARKOS, SRI. ISAAC THOMAS AND SRI. P. G. CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM For The Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2015. Through Ext.P8, the first respondent while computing the net taxable income of the petitioner-assessee has included the compensation amount of 80% received in the subject Assessment Year and assessed the income of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. 5. The first respondent in Ext.P8 while dealing with the contention of petitioner that the compensation received under Act 30 of 2013 is completely exempt from any liability under the Income Tax Act, Stamp duty and fees etc has recorded a few findings. I have taken note of all the findings and the following conclusion is reproduced for ready reference: The main intention of the section is to spare the poor farmer the further burden of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued a Circular bearing No.36/2016, dated 25.10.2016, clarifying that the compensation received under an award exempted from the levy of income tax under Section 96 of the 2013 Act shall not be taxable, even if there is no specific provision for exemption under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, one set of land owners whose lands were acquired have come up with the 3rd writ petition W.P.(C)No.44382 of 2016 seeking a mandamus not to deduct tax at source, in terms of the Circular of the CBDT . 18. But we do not know why the petitioners raise this contention. We are concerned in this case with the impact of Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 upon Section 96 of the 2013 Land Acq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or such compensation in the Income-tax Act, 1961. 26. Similarly, the entire scheme of Chapter-XVII of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as indicated by Section 190(1) is the payment of tax on income, by way of deduction or collection at source. Therefore, the last contention is that Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be pressed into service on an income which is not liable to tax under Section 96 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. 28. Therefore, it is clear that Chapter-XVII in entirety is about deduction or collection and recovery of tax. This is why Section 190(1) of the Act speaks only about tax on income. Section 190(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as follows: 190. Deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n those covered by Section 46 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, the levy of income-tax is barred by Section 96 and as a consequence, the deduction or collection under Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is impermissible. 39. We cannot lose sight of the fact that Central Act 30 of 2013 is a welfare legislation, which made a quantum leap from the provisions of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act. The object of the 2013 Act is not merely to provide just and fair compensation but also to make provisions for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the families of the land losers. The preamble to the Act shows that the Act was intended to look at land losers as persons who can become partners in the development of the country. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he concerned petitioners to enable them to encash the same. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No costs. He prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Mr. Christopher Abraham submits that the language of Section 96 is clear and unambiguous and there is no need to refer to intention or find out other ways and means to include the compensation received by the petitioner for any purpose of tax liability including the capital gains. 8. I have perused Exts.P8 and also the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C. Nanda Kumar v. Union of India . The language of Section 96 is clear, plain and simple. The exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
