2011 (9) TMI 1222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the action on behalf of Respondent No. 2 in deducting 10% of the amount of compensation payable to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent No. 3 in deducting the amount from the compensation is not sustainable in law. 5. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3, it is stated that in view of the Judgement of the Kerala High Court in the case of "Nalini vs. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition" 294 ITR 0423 (Ker.) 2007, it is for the Income Tax Authorities to decide and determine whether the compensation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not be appropriate to direct the petitioners to again go through the cumbersome exercise of making application to the Income Tax Authorities for refund of the amount. Admittedly, under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the compensation received on account of acquisition of the agricultural land is not assessable to the Income Tax. The petitioners are poor farmers. If they are required to make ....