TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Orders Refund of Compensation Deduction, Exempts Agricultural Land from Income Tax</h1> <h3>Shamrao Sitaram Adhe and others Versus The State of Maharashtra and others</h3> The Bombay High Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing Respondent No. 3 to refund the 10% deduction of compensation made to Respondent No. 2, who ... - Issues involved: Deduction of 10% of compensation by Respondent No. 2 and crediting it to Respondent No. 3; Applicability of Income Tax on compensation for acquired agricultural land.Deduction of Compensation:The petitioners approached the Bombay High Court aggrieved by Respondent No. 2 deducting 10% of the compensation payable to them and crediting it to Respondent No. 3. The lands of the petitioners were acquired for public purposes, and after the necessary proceedings, when the Award was passed, the deduction was made. The petitioners contended that since their acquired lands were agricultural, they were not assessable to Income Tax, making the deduction unsustainable in law.Income Tax Applicability:Respondent No. 3 cited a judgement of the Kerala High Court, stating that it is for the Income Tax Authorities to determine if the compensation is in respect of agricultural land as defined under the Income Tax Act. Respondent No. 3 acknowledged that the land in question was agricultural even under Section 2 (14) (iii) (A) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court, without delving into the legal aspects of the cited judgement, found that the compensation for agricultural land is not assessable to Income Tax. Directing the petitioners to seek refund from the Income Tax Authorities would burden them with unnecessary expenses, considering they are poor farmers.Judgement:In light of the peculiar facts of the case, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition. It ordered Respondent No. 3 to refund the deducted amount with interest to Respondent No. 2, who in turn would refund it to the petitioners. The entire process was to be completed within specified timeframes to ensure the petitioners receive the compensation rightfully due to them.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
