Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.85 seconds)Risal Singh & Another vs The Union Of India & Others on 11 January, 2010
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had received
certain interest on the enhanced compensation. According to him, no
tax was required to be deducted at source in view of the decisions of
COCP No. 2213 of 2011 -2-
this Court in CWP No. 9912 of 2009 (Risal Singh and another v. The
Union of India and others) decided on 11.1.2010 and CWP No. 16580
of 2010 (Bikramjeet Sood v. State of Punjab and others) decided on
15.9.2010 (Annexures P-2 and P-3).
Bikramjeet Sood vs State Of Punjab & Others on 15 September, 2010
It was submitted that this Court in
Bikramjeet Sood's case (supra) had issued directions to the Chief
Secretaries of the State of Punjab and Haryana and also to Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh to issue appropriate
directions to all concerned not to deduct tax at source on payment of
compensation due to the claimant in respect of the agricultural land
acquired by the State. It was urged that inspite of aforesaid general
directions, tax at source was being deducted from payments made to
the petitioner.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bir Singh (Huf) on 27 October, 2010
5. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that both the
cases were relating to payment of enhanced compensation in respect of
agricultural land and no deduction of tax at source could be made under
Section 194LA of the Act. The present case as is evident from the
perusal of Form 16A, Annexure P-1, relates to the payment of interest
on enhanced compensation. This Court in Income Tax Appeal No.
209 of 2004, Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Bir Singh
(HUF) dealing with interest received on enhanced amount of
compensation had held as under:-
Section 10 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
1