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

2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33447

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
AMMINI KUTTAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER – Respondent


J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition on the ground that no tax deduction at source can be made from the amounts awarded as per the Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, since the Award is passed on negotiation with the District Level Purchase Committee constituted under the Act. The issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by a decision in W.P(C) No.5607/2014 and connected cases.

2. However, the learned Standing Counsel, Government of India (Taxes) would raise an apprehension as to whether the deduction has already been made, in which event, the petitioner's remedy would be to file a refund application before the authority as provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is further contended that this Court has only interdicted tax deduction at source, when the amounts awarded are at an amount fixed on negotiation.

3. If no deduction has been made as of now, and the award is passed at a negotiated price, then the aforesaid judgment would apply squarely to the petitioner. The disbursing authority shall hence verify the records to ensure that the awards were passed only under negotiations between the District Level Purchase Committee and the la

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