9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of compensation. Also further held that interest received under section 34 of LAC Act was on account of delayed payment of compensation and was revenue receipt. Though the amounts received under sections 28 and 34 of LAC Act are termed as interest but two stands at different pedestal in so far as the Income Tax Act is concerned. Such is the proposition laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in Shri Madhav Pandharinath Kande Vs. ITO [ 2019 (7) TMI 1928 - ITAT PUNE] . The Hon ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF) [ 2017 (9) TMI 1532 - SUPREME COURT] talks of the year of taxability which is not in dispute. In the totality of the same, we allow the plea of assessee that interest received under section 28 of LAC Act is to be treated as pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the present appeals after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives. 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the only issue which needs to be decided in the present set of appeals is against chargeability of interest received under the Land Acquisition Act (in short LAC Act ). The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard has pointed out that the award letter itself talks of solatium to be paid @ 30% and the interest calculated under section 28 of LAC Act, which totals to a larger amount but during the year under consideration, the assessee i.e. Satish Wamanrao Honerao has only received ₹ 31,48,770/-. He stressed that the said interest which was the payment und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UF) (supra) and in other cases had held that interest awarded under section 28 of LAC Act was in the nature of solatium and was an integral part of compensation. It was further held that interest received under section 34 of LAC Act was on account of delayed payment of compensation and was revenue receipt. Though the amounts received under sections 28 and 34 of LAC Act are termed as interest but two stands at different pedestal in so far as the Income Tax Act is concerned. Such is the proposition laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in Shri Madhav Pandharinath Kande Vs. ITO (supra). The Hon ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF) talks of the year of taxability which is not in dispute. In the totality of the same, we allow the plea of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
