Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shaw, Wallace And Co. on 14 March, 1932
In the first place the principal sum which was ultimately found due as at 11th November 1927 as compensation for the acquisition was not determined and so did not exist until 6th April 1931, the date of the tribunal's order; and in the second place, as we have already said, the interest awarded is compensation for the loss of the late owner's right to retain the property. If the interest awarded under Section 28, Land Acquisition Act, is income, it must have a source. It seems to us that there are only two possible sources, either the property or its equivalent in money, and as we have already said, we do not think that this interest can be said to> have arisen from either of these. It is not the "fruit of a tree" - to borrow the simile used in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Shaw Wallace & Co. ('32) 19 A.I.R. 1932 P.C. 138 - but was compensation or damages for loss of the right to-retain possession; and it seems to us that Section 28 was designed as a convenient method of measuring such damages in terms of interest. Under Section 28 the awarding of interest is not mandatory but is discretionary with the Court; and so the claimant is not entitled to it as of right under any rule of law.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bihar & ... vs Rani Prayag Kumari Debi. on 26 September, 1939
22. These and other English authorities were considered by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax B. & O. v. Prayag Kumari ('39) 26 A.I.R. 1939 Pat. 662. Manohar Lall J., who delivered the judgment of the Court, classified the various decisions of the English Courts, the two main groups of his classification being (1) cases where interest is payable either under a contract or under a rule of law, and (2) cases where damages have been awarded. In that case a widow had instituted a suit for possession of move-able and immovable properties left by her husband. She claimed the properties as her husband's heir and pleaded wrongful possession on the part of the defendant. The latter claimed to be the rightful owner, but the suit was decreed in favour of the widow. She was awarded certain moveable properties and also certain sums of money as damages for wrongful detention. It was held by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court that the sum received by the widow by way of damages was not an income assessable to income-tax. None of the authorities to which we have been referred is directly in point in the case with which we are now dealing, but some of the observations which have been made, afford material from which we may receive some guidance. The borderline between a case where interest is chargeable to tax and a case where it is not so chargeable appears at times to be extremely fine, as has been recognized in Courts in England.