TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1982
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....577/Chd/2010), M.A. No.75/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 578/Chd/2010), M.A. No.76/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 579/Chd/2010), M.A. No.77/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 580/Chd/2010), M.A. No.78/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 581/Chd/2010), M.A. No.79/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 582/Chd/2010), M.A. No.80/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 583/Chd/2010), M.A. No.81/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 584/Chd/2010), M.A. No.82/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 585/Chd/2010), M.A. No.83/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 586/Chd/2010), M.A. No.84/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 587/Chd/2010), M.A. No.85/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 588/Chd/2010), M.A. No.86/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 589/Chd/2010), M.A. No.87/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 590/Chd/2010), M.A. No.88/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 591/Chd/2010), M.A. No.89/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 592/Chd/2010), M.A. No.90/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 593/Chd/2010), M.A. No.91/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 594/Chd/2010), M.A. No.92/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 595/Chd/2010), M.A. No.93/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 596/Chd/2010), M.A. No.94/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 597/Chd/2010), M.A. No.95/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 598/Chd/2010), M.A. No.96/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 599/Chd/2010), M.A. No.97/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 600/Chd/2010), M.A. No.98/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 601/Chd/2010), M.A. No.99/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 602/Chd/2010), M.A. No.10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nced amount of compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, to be taxable u/s 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') as 'Income from Other Sources' ,in the case of 'CIT, Faridabad Vs. Bir Singh HUF', Ballabhgarhin Income Tax Appeal No. 209 of 2004 , dt.27-10-10 . The Revenue has, therefore, sought reconsideration of the order of the ITAT in view of the aforesaid subsequent decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. 4. Before us, the Ld. DR contended that the ITAT had incorrectly interpreted the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of 'Ghanshyam HUF' (supra) as holding interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894to partaking the character of compensation.Ld.DR contended that the Jurisdictional High Court had correctly interpreted the decision in the case of Bir Singh(supra) holding that the said income was not in the nature of compensation but was taxable u/s 56 as income from other sources. Our attention was drawn to the relevant paras of the order at para 23 ,25&26. . It was further pointed out that the said decision was reconsidered and reiterated by the Hon'ble high court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF), Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the Apex Court, the issue was outside the purview of section 254 of the Act since clearly it was a debatable issue and not an error which was apparent from record which could be rectified in the present proceedings. 7. The Ld. DR responded to this by stating that as on date, the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court was clear and there was no debate as such on the issue and, therefore, the order of the ITAT on this account was erroneous. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee responded by stating that the High Court in the case of 'Sunder Lal and another Vs. Union of India' (supra) had not travelled to the Apex Court, while in the case of 'Manjit Singh', SLP filed by the assessee had been dismissed by the Apex Court which cannot be said to be the laying down the law. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, contended, that since the Apex Court had reiterated the proposition of law vis a vis the nature of interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as partaking the character of enhanced compensation, in two decisions, it was to be treated as the law of the land and the ITAT having rendered its judgement following the decision of the Apex Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 23(2) of the said Act. Section 28 of the 1894 Act applies only in respect of the excess amount determined by the court after reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It depends upon the claim, unlike interest under section 34 which depends on undue delay in making the award. 50. It is true that "interest" is not compensation. It is equally true that Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act refers to compensation. But as discussed hereinabove, we have to go by the provisions of the 1894 Act which awards "interest" both as an accretion in the value of the lands acquired and interest for undue delay. Interest under Section 28 unlike interest under Section 34 is an accretion to the value, hence it is a part of enhanced compensation or consideration which is not the case with interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. So also additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1961 Act forms part of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act." 8. It is clear from the above that whereas interest under Section 34 is not treated as a part of income subject to tax, the interest earned under Section 28, which is on enhanced compensation, is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 155(16) of the 1961 Act. We may clarify that even before the insertion of Section 45(5)(c) and Section 155(16) w.e.f. 1-4-2004, the receipt of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt." 9. In view of the above discussion, we allow these appeals in part and set aside that portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby spread over of the interest received under section 28 of the 1894 Act, on the enhanced income is allowed with the direction that it would be taxed in the year in which such interest on enhanced compensation was received." Further we do not agree with the contention of the Ld.DR that the said decision is of no assistance to the assessee since the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case was different from that in the present case and related to year of taxability of interest received as part of compensation. We find that the question before the apex court besides the year of taxability of the interest was also regarding the assessability of the same to tax . The same is evid....