| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 95 2004 SLD 95 2004 PTD 2168 (2002) 255 ITR 647 |
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeals Nos.3468 to 3476 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd April, 1996.(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October, 13 and 14, 1981, of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.R. Nos.83, 101 to 105, 113, 114 and 118 of 1978)
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ
Gopal Jain, Advocate, for Mukul Mudgal, Advocate for Appellant36Manoj Arora, Advocate for
Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos.3468 to 3476 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd April, 1996.(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October, 13 and 14, 1981, of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.R. Nos.83, 101 to 105, 113, 114 and 118 of 1978)
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ
Gopal Jain, Advocate, for Mukul Mudgal, Advocate for Appellant36Manoj Arora, Advocate for
Respondent
Smt. P. MAHALAKSHMI and others
VS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 45,48
Income tax......Capital gains Portion of property belonging to assessee acquired -Statutory compensation for injury to un acquired portion Part of full value of consideration for portion acquired Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.23(1) Indian, Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.45 & 48. From the decision of the High Court (see (1982) 134 ITR 428) that where, in computing the compensation for acquisition of a portion of land the injurious effect on the unacquired portion is taken into account as specified under the head "Fourthly" in section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, what is awarded is the full consideration of the portion of land acquired and has to be taken into account for the purpose of arriving at the capital gains, the assessees preferred appeals to the Supreme Court: Held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that the amount awarded under the head "Fourthly" stood on the same footing as the amount awarded under any other head and no distinction was permissible as between them: all of them represented the compensation awarded for the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. CIT v. Smt. P. Mahalakshmi (1982) 134 ITR 428 affirmed. ORDER These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court (see (1982) 134 ITR 428). The question in short is Whether the compensation awarded tinder the head "Fourthly" in subsection (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does, or does not, represent the compensation for the land acquired. Section 23(1) reads as follows: "23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall, take, into consideration Firstly, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under, section 4, subsection (1); , Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492