TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner rightly invoked revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order had wrongly allowed tax exemption on compensation received for acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956, and whether the assessee-company could claim exemption under section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 exempts income-tax on awards or agreements made under that Act, but section 105(1) excludes the Act's application to enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule, subject only to the limited operation contemplated by section 105(3) for compensation and rehabilitation-related schedules. The exemption under section 105(3) is confined to the First, Second and Third Schedules and does not extend the full exemption under section 96 to acquisitions under Fourth Schedule enactments. The compensation in question arose from acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, which falls within the Fourth Schedule, and the CBDT's clarification dated 06.06.2019 was relied upon to hold that section 96 would not apply in such cases. The assessee-company also could not invoke section 10(37), as that provision is confined to individual and HUF assessees and requires satisfaction of its own conditions. On these facts, the assessment was found to have been framed on an incorrect understanding of the law.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was justified, and the assessee-company was not entitled to the claimed exemption.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
