cites: 65104350

Atul Sharma, New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 27 July, 2017

In view of the above observations and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the compensation received by the assessee from DLF for delayed handing over of the property in the sum of Rs.24,15,137/- is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the ITA No.5803/DEL/2013 Atul Sharma vs. ITO 13 assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Section 194A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 1633

Section 28 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 8933

Section 31 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 2873

Viswapriya Financial Services & ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 October, 2002

5. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned counsel for the Revenue, has placed reliance on the judgement of the Madras High Court in Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 179 CTR (Mad) 334 (2002) 258 ITR 496 (Mad), wherein the Madras High Court held as follows:

Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - R J Babu - Full Document

Bikram Singh & Ors vs The Land Acquisition Collector & Ors on 11 September, 1996

9. While taking this view we are relying upon the judgement of the apex Court in Bikram Singh & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 475 (1997) 224 ITR 551 (SC). In the case before the apex Court the question was whether the interest paid to the persons whose land had been compulsorily acquired under ss. 28 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act was a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. The apex Court held that though it was termed as interest on delayed payment, it was actually a revenue receipt and therefore the provisions of s. 194A of the IT Act would have no application. It would be pertinent to mention that the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Revision Petn.

Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 94 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Ghaziabad Development Authority, ... vs S.K. Gupta And Others on 1 December, 1999

No. 2244 of 1999 titled as Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Dr. N.K. Gupta under similar situation held that when the State Commission directed payment of interest to the allottees for delayed completion of flats the same did not fall within the purview of s. 194A of the IT Act.

Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 25 - P K Jain - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs Income-Tax Officer on 24 January, 1995

Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. ITO reported in 53 ITD 19; decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Beacon Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 377 ITR 237 and Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sawhney Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (TDS) reported in 201 ITD 259.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

The Income Tax Act, 1961

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 110052

M/S.Beacon Projects Pvt.Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 August, 2014