2019 (1) TMI 1712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nshyam (HUF) (315-ITR-01- SC), therefore, exempt u/s. 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 01.04.2005. 2. That in the present case the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly applied the provisions of sections 145A(b), 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.03.2011 declaring income of Rs. 2,68,460/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee derived income from transportation of goods, rental income and income from interest. In the assessment proceedings, on questionnaire dated 09.07.2012 at Sl. No. 22, the assessee was specifically asked to furnish the positive evidence in respect of addi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inance Act No. 2 (Act) 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010, 50% of the above interest which comes to Rs. 7,19,220/- is taxable in the year of receipt and assessable in the assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee. The assessee furnished reply on 03.09.2012 and relied on several judgments as incorporated in the assessment order. The amount paid to the assessee was under different sections of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as under : U/s. 23(1) Rs. 4,59,027/- U/s. 23(2) Rs. 1,37,708/- U/s. 23(1A) Rs. 1,63,891/- U/s. 34 Rs. 68,456/- U/s. 34 Rs. 12,07,494/- TOTAL: Rs. 20,36,576 The Assessing Officer observed that section 57(iv) and 56(2)(viii) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt in the case of Ghanshyam HUF (supra) and other decisions, has held as under :- "9. The Ld. counsels for assessee has further brought our attention the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF) dated 12.9.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 13053/2017 wherein also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the proposition laid down in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), which we find has been further reiterated in the case of Union of India vs. Hari Singh & others in Civil Appeal No. 1504 of 2017 dated 15.9.2017, as under: "(2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the ....