TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, Judge, JJ. For the appellant : M/s. Vinay Kuthiala, Vandana Kuthiala & Vishal Mohan, Advocates For the respondents : M/s. Vivek Thakur & B.C. Negi, Advocates. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). These appeals, except appeal No. 41 of 2007 were admitted on the following common substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration on the basis of receipt? 2. Facts are not much in dispute. Respondents' land was acquired for a public purpose by the Government. The amount of compensation, inclusive of interest was enhanced by this Court in various appeals filed by various land owners. Such information was obtained by the Assessing Officer, who while assessing the income as per the return filed by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received by the assessee is compensation under sections 23 & 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), is not in dispute. 4. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC) has held as under:- "To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid on the excess amount under Section 28 of the 1894 Act depends u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India - (2001) 7 SCC 211, that "indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms it talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. Thus, interest awardable under Section 28, would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thu....