2018 (10) TMI 852

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uired, was entitled to the benefit of section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act? 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee was in possession of 70 cents of land at Vizhinjam village. The same was sold by executing a sale deed in favour of Vizhinjam International Seaport for a total consideration of Rs. 1,32,81,555. For the assessment year 2012-2013, the assessee filed return of income claiming the entire sale consideration received as exempt from tax. It was claimed that the said property, which was taken over by Vizhinjam International Seaport, was an agricultural land and was compulsorily acquired by the Government of Kerala. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee was entitled to provisions of section 10(37) of the I.T.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enefit of section 10(37) of the I.T.Act was that the land in question was not compulsorily acquired, but by executing a sale deed in favour of Vizhinjam International Seaport. In this context, the learned AR submitted that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India [(2017) 391 ITR 178 (SC)] and Union of India v. Infopark Kerala [81 Taxmann.com 51 (SC)]. It was contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in above cases had clearly held that since the entire procedure fixed under Land Acquisition Act was followed, the character of acquisition from that of compulsory acquisition to voluntary sale would not change though the price was fixed on negot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows:- "8. In our view, insofar as acquisition of the land is concerned, the same was compulsorily acquired as the entire procedure prescribed under the LA Act was followed. The settlement took place only qua the amount of the compensation which was to be received by the appellant for the land which had been acquired. It goes without saying that had steps not been taken by the Government under Sections 4 and 6 followed by award under Section 9 of the LA Act, the appellant would not have agreed to divest the land belonging to him to Techno Park. He was compelled to do so because of the compulsory acquisition and to avoid litigation entered into negotiations and settled the final compensation. M....