TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vocate For R-1 & R-2 Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar, Aga For R- 3 ORAL ORDER: In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: "a) Quash the impugned communication/order dated 09.07.2024, issued by the Respondent No.2, vide Annexure-F. b) Direct the respondents to consider the claim of petitioners under legal notice dated 16.04.2024 vide Annexure-D and refund the amount deducted towards TDS income tax as mentioned in the Form No.16A produced at Annexure-C, with interest from the date of deduction till realization. c) Such further order other reliefs be granted to the petitioners to which the petitioners would be found entitled to on the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Heard learned counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also not filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved by the impugned communication/ endorsement dated 09.07.2024, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would file an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act seeking condonation of delay along with income tax returns for the assessment year 2015-16, which may be allowed by the respondents, who may direct to receive the income tax returns and refund the TDS collected by them as held by this Court in the case of Ramakrishnappa and others Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and another - W.P.No.35685/2025 and Connected matters, dated 15.06.2026. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/- per acre, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for rain-fed lands respectively. Being aggrieved by the said award, references were sought under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and the reference Court enhanced the compensation to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for irrigated lands. The petitioners thereafter filed MFA No.2739/2015, MFA No.1189/2021 and MFA No.2295/2015 respectively claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.105/- per square feet and a Division Bench of this Court vide judgments and awards dated 29.11.2024 and 12.08.2025 determined the compensation payable at Rs.105/- per square feet. (iii) The petitioners contend that they made several representations requesting the respondents to release the compensation as per the jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... position of law. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), 2009 (8) SCC 412, held that the interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, forms part of the enhanced compensation and that such interest is intended to factor inflation during the period between the determination of compensation and its payment. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that "interest under Section 28 of the Act, 1894 is an accretion to the value of the land and hence forms part of the enhanced compensation or consideration". 7. As a matter of fact, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. 8. Insofar as the impugned communication/ endorsement rejecting the refund request of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act nor had they filed returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is concerned, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by quashing the impugned communication/order and by issuing certain directions. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned communication/order at Annexure-F dated 09.07.2024 issued/passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. iii) The petitioners are directed to file an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act al....