2018 (10) TMI 1435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cquired? 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee was in possession of 120 Ares of land in Vizhinjam village. The said property was notified by the Government of Kerala for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, after discussion and negotiations with the Government, a sale deed was executed, whereby the property was sold to Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited for a total consideration of Rs. 7,94,12,901. For the assessment year 2012-2013, the return of income was filed on 22.01.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 18,16,070, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 19,40,070. 3.1 Thereafter notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act was issued on 17.12.2013. Notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act was issued for the rea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jam International Seaport Limited, was admittedly agricultural land and the assessee carried out coconut plantation and certain other crops. The solitary reason for denying the benefit of section 10(37) of the I.T.Act was that the impugned land was not compulsorily acquired, but by executing a sale deed in favour of Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited. In this context, the learned AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India (supra) 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 Ac....