2014 (12) TMI 1298 - SCH - Income Tax

Supreme Court of India Dismisses Special Leave Petitions

Manjet Singh (Huf) Karta Manjeet Singh Versus Union of India and ors.

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petitions as no legal grounds for interference were found. - Manjet Singh (Huf) Karta Manjeet Singh ... Nature of interest received by the landowner-assessee - enhanced compensation - whether the interest which is received by the assessee-landowner partakes the character of income or not? - Held that:- No legal and valid ground for interference. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. HC order confirmed [2015 (12) TMI 1123 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] HC has held that the compensation awarded by the Court includes the additional compensation awarded under Section 23(1A) and the solatium under Section 23(2) of the said Act. Section 28 is applicable only in respect of the excess amount, which is determined by the Court after a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. Under Section 34 of the 1894 Act, the Collector awards interest on the compensation offered at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which remains unpaid or deposited before the date of such expiry. A plain reading of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) as also Section 28 of the 1894 Act clearly spells out that additional benefits are available on the market value of the acquired lands under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) whereas Section 28 is available in respect of the entire compensation The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment by Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions as no legal grounds for interference were found. (Citation: 2014 (12) TMI 1298 - SC Order)