Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Ranjeet Singh Yadav Huf, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Jaipur on 22 April, 2022

Ito Ward-1, Fatehabad vs Girish Kumar, Fatehabad on 6 July, 2022

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law by treating the interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as Non-taxable. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjeet Singh HUF Vs. CIT has already upheld the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana by dismissing the SLP filed against the High Court Decision that interest received u/s 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are taxable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hari Singh Saini, Hisar vs Ito Ward - 2, Hisar on 20 March, 2023

Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court after considering the scheme of section 45(5) of the LT. Act has categorically held that payment made under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is enhanced compensation, as a necessary corollary, therefore, the contention that payment made under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is interest as envisaged under section 145A of the LT. Act and has to be treated as income from other sources, is unjustified and against the law laid down by the Apex Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1