SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Ker) 662

R.RAJENDRA BABU
Kottappalakkudath Khadeeja – Appellant
Versus
The Special Tahsildar – Respondent


Judgment :-

Petitioners property was acquired and an award was passed on 24-11-1999 fixing the compensation at Rs.3,85,468/-. As per Section 194 L of the Income Tax Act 10% of the above compensation amount should have been withheld by the Land Acquisition Authority towards Income Tax and only the rest of the amount should have been disbursed. By inadvertence, the entire compensation amount had been disbursed to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer issued Ext.P1 notice dated, 12-8-2003 directing refund of 10% of the amount and also Surcharge on the above amount. The above notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.

3. In view of Sec. 194 L which was then in the Statute, from 1-6-1999. 10% of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal should have been withheld towards income tax and the balance amount alone should have been disbursed to the party. Section 194 L reads:

“Any person responsible for paying to a resident any sum being in the nature of compensa





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top