<?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>2026 (5) TMI 484 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791282</link>
    <description>Compensation awarded under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was treated as falling within the protective scope of Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which bars income tax on awards made under that Act. On that basis, deduction of tax at source was held impermissible, and Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not justify withholding where the payment is statutorily exempt. The compensation, once crystallized into an executable award and deposited in execution, was also regarded as a decretal debt, so it had to be disbursed in full without deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 07:30:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 484 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791282</link>
      <description>Compensation awarded under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was treated as falling within the protective scope of Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which bars income tax on awards made under that Act. On that basis, deduction of tax at source was held impermissible, and Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not justify withholding where the payment is statutorily exempt. The compensation, once crystallized into an executable award and deposited in execution, was also regarded as a decretal debt, so it had to be disbursed in full without deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>