Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

46.3 Further, clause (viii) is inserted in the sub-section (2) of the section 56 so as to provide that income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation referred to in clause (b) of section 145A shall be assessed as "income from other sources" in the year in which it is received.
At the time of issue of the circular both the judgments of Hon. Supreme Court had been delivered and it cannot be said that the CBDT was oblivion of the same. Hence, it has to be assumed that the cognizance is taken while issuing the circular. The circular mentions about the Rama Bal's case only and there is no mention of Ghanshyam's case. Obviously, the position settled of Interpretation of the word "compensation" is not disturbed by any amendment or the circular. Hence, it is obvious that the positon of interpretation settled by both the above decisions of Hon. SupremeCourt has remained settled even after insertion of cl. (vili) in Sec. 56(2). There is no amendment in the LA Act w.r.t. both the interests in question. Not only this but the new RECTLRR Act 2013 contains similar sections 72 and 80 respectively for sec. 28 and 34 of the LA Act 1894.
The issue involves as to whether in respect of interest income u/s 28 of the LA Act 1894, Sec. 56(2)(viii) overrides Sec. 10(37)? The answer is no as the income travels u/s 56 only P a g e |6 Raj Kumar & Sons HUF (2019-20) if it is not to be excluded from total income and not covered under any other heads of income.
Hon. Supreme Court has made distinction between interest u/s 28 and Sec. 34 of the LA Act, 1894. From the reported facts in the case before Hon. P & H High court, it is clear that the land is acquired under the LA Act, 1894, and the assessee had stated that the interest is u/s 28 of that Act. This fact is nowhere disputed by the Dept. also.

xii) Pranav saran vs ACIT Circle 32(1) New Delhi ITA No. 499/Delhi/2021 Date of order 04.05.2022

xiii) Smt. UrmilaGargvs ITO Ward Sangrur ITA 1183/ Chd/2019 Date of order 31.08.2021.

xiv) Satish Kumar vs ITO Ward Sangrur (TA 1182/Chd/2019 Date of order 31.08.2021.

In view of the above facts, circumstances of the case, statutory Intend u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, Section 96, sections 72 and 80 of RCTRR Act 2013, sec. 28 and 34 of the LA Act 1894 and Landmark Judicial Pronouncements by Hon'ble Supreme Court and other judiciary of the Country, interest received U/S 28 of the LA Act is part of Consideration and not liable to tax and rightly Assessed. Hence request your honour to kindly drop the Proceedings Initiated /S 263 of the Act to meet the end of justice."