Kerala High Court: ED Can Investigate Without FIR in Scheduled Offence Cases (CMRL Matter)  ||  Delhi High Court Upholds TRAI Rule Capping TV Advertisements at 12 Minutes Per Hour  ||  Supreme Court Directs High Courts to Deliver Judgments in 3 Months and Bail Orders in One Day  ||  Supreme Court: Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Negotiate Further After CoC Approval  ||  Supreme Court: Succession Law Applies, Not Primogeniture, to Ex-Royal’s Private Estate Inheritance  ||  Supreme Court: Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Challenge Arbitrator’s Section 16 Decision  ||  Supreme Court: Sanyasi Status Cannot Be Ground to Reject Land Compensation Claim  ||  Supreme Court: Section 33(1)(a) of Arbitration Act Cannot Alter Nature of Interest in Award  ||  Supreme Court: Society Office Bearers Not Liable for Cheque Dishonour Without Active Business Role  ||  Supreme Court: Asking a Woman to Adjust in Marriage Does Not Amount to Cruelty By In-Laws    

Kishor Ganpat Karande vs. Income-Tax Officer - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (01 Dec 2022)

Authorities are required to assist the assessee in the assessment proceedings by giving effect to the correct position of law

MANU/IP/0805/2022

Direct Taxation

In present matter, the assessee raised grounds of appeal challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the order of AO in denying exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) and disallowance of improvement cost in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The evidences furnished amply shows that the land belonging to the assessee which was compulsorily acquired by the Government of Maharashtra is an agricultural land, the assessee was into agricultural activity during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer was being used agricultural purposes by the assessee. Further, the said compensation was received by the assessee on or after 01-04-2004. Therefore, going by the conditions contemplated in clause (i) to (iv) of sub-section (37) of section 10 of the Act the compensation received by the assessee for compulsory acquisition of his land by the Government of Maharashtra is not chargeable under the head "Capital Gains" arising from transfer of agricultural land, therefore, do not form part of total income of the assessee. The assessee was into agricultural activity. The assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(37) of the Act.

As held by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Balmukund Acharya that, the authorities under the Act are required to assist the assessee in the assessment proceedings by giving effect on the correct position of law, even if the assessee makes wrong claim. The compensation derived from the Government of Maharashtra on the compulsory acquisition of assessee's land, the assessee is entitled to claim the same as exempted under Section 10(37) of the Act. Thus, the order of CIT(A) in confirming the view of AO in denying the deduction under Section 54B of the Act is not justified and the addition made thereon is deleted. The appeal of assessee is allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   EXEMPTION   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved