Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Enhanced compensation received under an Interim Order of HC

CIT vs. Chet Ram (HUF)- SC-27 Sep 2017

Question of law: "Whether the respondents-assessees who have received some amount of enhanced compensation as also interest thereon under an interim order passed by the High Court in pending appeals relating to land acquisition matter are liable to be assessed for income tax in the year in which it has been received or not"

Some of the major pointers about the case:

1- It was brought the attention of this Court to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 412 wherein the provisions of Section 45(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were considered and this Court in paragraphs 53 to 56 has held that in view of the Amendment in the Income Tax Act, the person who has received enhanced compensation and interest thereon even by an interim order passed by the Court would be assessed to tax for that enhanced compensation,

2- Consequently, even in cases where pending appeal, the Court/tribunal/authority before which appeal is pending, permits the claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise the enhanced compensation (which is in dispute) the same is liable to be taxed under Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act. This is the scheme of Section 45(5) and Section 155 (16) of the 1961 Act,

3- Further it has been clarified by the court that "Consequently, even in cases where pending appeal, the Court/tribunal/authority before which appeal is pending, permits the claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise the enhanced compensation (which is in dispute) the same is liable to be taxed under Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act. This is the scheme of Section 45(5) and Section 155 (16) of the 1961 Act"

4- Learned  court further noted that "Having settled the controversy going on for the last two decades, we are of the view that in this batch of cases which relate back to Assessment Years 1991-1992 and 1992-1993, possibly the proceedings under the LA Act, 1894 would have ended. In a number of cases we find that proceedings under the 1894 Act have been concluded and taxes have been paid.”



No comments:

Post a Comment