A.M.KHANWILKAR, HEMANT GUPTA, DINESH MAHESHWARI
RAJ PAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HARYANA, ROHTAK – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Preliminary And Brief Outline
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh[ For short, 'the High Court'] in Income Tax Reference No. 53-A of 1991 whereby the High Court, while answering the reference under the then existing Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 19611[ For short, 'the Act of 1961' or 'the Act'], disapproved the order dated 29.06.1990 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench3<[ For short, ITAT] in ITA No. 739/Chandi/89 for the assessment year 1971-1972; and held that the capital gains arising out of land acquisition compensation were chargeable to income-tax under Section 45 of the Act of 1961 for the previous year referable to the date of award of compensation i.e., 29.09.1970 and not the date of notification for acquisition.
2. In the present case, the question concerning date of accrual of capital gains arose in the backdrop that though the proceedings for acquisition in question were taken up by way of notification dated 15.05.1968 and award of compensation was made on 29.09.1970 but, as a matter of fact, at the time of issuan
Rama Bai v. Commissioner of Income-Tax
Joginder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.: AIR 1985 SC 382 – Distinguished [Para 22.2]
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and Ors. v. Godrej and Boyce
Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. Delhi Improvement Trust: AIR 1957 SC 344 – Relied [Para 31.4]
Buddaiah v. Commissioner of Income-Tax
Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh v. Avinash Sharma: (1971) 1 SCR 413 – Relied [Para 33.1.1]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.