Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.02 seconds)
Radheshyam P. Trivedi vs Income-Tax Officer on 31 July, 1986 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs M.D. Manohar Rao on 27 October, 1984

8. We now come to the claim based on diversion by overriding title. Here the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M.D. Manohar Rao (supra) relied upon by the assessee's counsel is on a different basis. In that case there was an agreement for the sale of land and thereafter that land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that under that Act the purchaser was a person interested in the compensation and so he was entitled to the compensation amount over and above the sale price payable to the assessee under the agreement of sale. It was for that reason that the Court held that this was a case of diversion of the excess amount over the sale price. Although there was agreement between the assessee and the purchaser that the excess amount was to be paid to the purchaser, the basis thereof was the statutory position in the said Act. It was the Act which provided the basis for giving compensation and it was the Act which entitled the purchaser to the excess amount. Thus, the source of the payment and the source of entitlement of the purchaser were the same. That is why it was held to be diversion of income at source. In this case the source of the income to the assessee is the actual sale while the source of the entitlement of Durga is the agreement by the assessee to pay the excess amount over Rs. 40 per sq. yd. to Durga. Therefore, these two sources are different. Hence, this payment of Rs. 1,05,780 cannot be a diversion at source. In this regard the analogy drawn by the assessee's counsel between this case and the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the basis of payment of excess amount is superficial and unjustified.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1