TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act 1961 (the Act) and, completion of assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, which were without jurisdiction and deserved to be quashed as such. 1.1 That while upholding the assumption of jurisdiction, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that reasons recorded were based on factually incorrect assumption that the appellant had not filed her return of income and that reasons had been mechanically recorded without independent application of mind by the Ld. Assessing Officer and approval by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had also been granted mechanically without examining records & facts of case and without independent application of mind. 1.2 That while upholding the assumptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(ii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Rajkot v. Govindbhai Mamaiya [2014] 52 taxmann.com 270/[2015] 229 Taxman 138/[20141 367 ITR 498(SC); (iii) Decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO [20161 70 taxmann.com 45/388 ITR 343 (Guj.); (iv) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Hari Singh [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC); (v) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO-TDS, Rajkot Vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 27333 of 2017), judgement dated November 10,2017; (vi) Decision of the Hon'ble ITAT New Delhi 'F' Bench in the case of Paramjeet Singh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and the same has to be treated as tax free in the case of an individual and HUF u/s 10(37) of the Act if transfer is of an agricultural land. 7. On careful consideration of the above submissions, I am of the considered view that similar controversy arose before the ITAT Delhi 'F' Bench in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) wherein the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in paras 8 and 9 has elaborately considered the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) as well as the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mahender Pal Narang (supra). The relevant observations and findings of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in paras 8 and 9 the said order read as under:- "8. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther amendment u/s 56 was also made to provide that such income shall be taxable as income from other sources in the year in which it is received. However such amendment was not in respect to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Ghanshyam HUF 315 ITR 1. Despite the above changes made u/s 14 5A and u/s 56 (2) with effect from 1 June 2010, so as to tax the interest on compensation or enhanced compensation as income from other sources u/s 56 in the year of receipts, the judicial precedents held that the interest awarded to landowners u/s 28 of the land acquisition act, 1894 on enhanced compensation is still a part of compensation and is a capital receipt taxable Under the head capital gains. Such is the judicial precedent of....