<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1967 (4) TMI 12 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5033</link>
    <description>Interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land was held to be taxable as income rather than a capital receipt. The compensation framework, read with the principles incorporated from the Land Acquisition Act, supported a substantive right to interest even though the enactments did not expressly provide for it. The Court distinguished cases where an amount described as interest was only a measure of damages, and held that those authorities did not apply where the claimant had been kept out of compensation that ought to have been paid. The exclusionary clause in the arbitration provision did not prevent application of the law relating to interest, so the award was treated as true interest and not part of capital compensation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (4) TMI 12 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5033</link>
      <description>Interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land was held to be taxable as income rather than a capital receipt. The compensation framework, read with the principles incorporated from the Land Acquisition Act, supported a substantive right to interest even though the enactments did not expressly provide for it. The Court distinguished cases where an amount described as interest was only a measure of damages, and held that those authorities did not apply where the claimant had been kept out of compensation that ought to have been paid. The exclusionary clause in the arbitration provision did not prevent application of the law relating to interest, so the award was treated as true interest and not part of capital compensation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>