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>Court Quashes Order, Directs Refund and Tax Exemption for Land Acquisition Compensation Due to Erroneous Rejection.</h1> <h3>SMT. P. JAISHREE Versus THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-WARD 5 (2) (3), BENGALURU.</h3> SMT. P. JAISHREE Versus THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-WARD 5 (2) (3), BENGALURU. - ... Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the petitioner seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order and a Writ of Mandamus to direct the authority to consider an application for exemption under the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 1 - Quashing of Impugned Order:The petitioner, an individual assessee under the Income Tax Act, filed returns for the assessment year 2018-19, disclosing tax on long term capital gains from compensation received. The petitioner sought exemption for tax deducted at source and payment of tax on land acquisition compensation. The respondent rejected the application on grounds of delay and merits. The High Court held that the land acquisition compensation is exempt from income tax based on a previous Division Bench decision. The Court found the rejection of the refund request by the respondent to be erroneous and allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order.Issue 2 - Condonation of Delay:The petitioner submitted an application under Section 119[2][b] of the IT Act seeking condonation of delay in filing for a refund. The respondent rejected the request citing delay. The High Court noted that the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay were valid and sufficient, and the respondent's rejection was based on a hyper-technical approach. The Court found the rejection of the delay condonation request to be contrary to the material on record. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondent to refund the tax collected back to the petitioner expeditiously within one month of the order.This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, addressing each issue involved and the Court's findings and directives.
TaxTMI 