Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Raghubir (Decd.) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Raghubir (Decd.) and ors. vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Disposition Writ petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Jul 16, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710257

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Writ Petn. No. 1334 of 1995
Subject
Direct Taxation
Disposition
Writ petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation
Outcome / disposition
Writ petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 4 and 194A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raghubir (Decd.) and ors.

Advocate Om Prakash, Adv

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Advocate R.C. Pandey and ; Premlata Bansal, Advs.

Legal References

Acts
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 4 and 194A
Cases Referred
In Bikram Singh and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors.
Reported In
(2003)179CTR(Del)603

Excerpt

- d.k. jain, j.1. in this writ petition the petitioners seeks quashing of a circular issued by the dy. cit to the land acquisition collector, directing him to deduct tax at source at the time of making payment of interest to the petitioner on account of enhancement of compensation. it is also prayed that the collector may be restrained from deducting the tax at source in terms of said circular.2. according to the petitioner, since the amount of interest payable on account of delay in payment of enhanced compensation is not liable to be taxed, the land acquisition collector cannot be asked to deduct tax at source.3. the issue raised in the petition is no longer rest integra. in bikram singh and ors. v. land acquisition collector and ors. : [1997]224itr551(sc) , the supreme court has held that the interest receipt on delayed payment of the compensation, determined under the land acquisition act, 1894, is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under section 4 of the it act, 1961 (for short the act). it has also been held that section 194a of the act had no application for the purpose of this case as it encompasses deduction of the income-tax at source. however, the court observed that the persons entitled to compensation would be entitled to a spread over of the income for the period for which payment came to be made so as to compute the income for assessing tax for the relevant accounting year. in view of the said authoritative pronouncement, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.4. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged. the interim order stands vacated. however, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the concerned authority for spreading over the income to the period for which payment came to be made so that the income for the purpose of assessing tax for the relevant assessment years could be computed. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

D.K. Jain, J.

1. In this writ petition the petitioners seeks quashing of a circular issued by the Dy. CIT to the Land Acquisition Collector, directing him to deduct tax at source at the time of making payment of interest to the petitioner on account of enhancement of compensation. It is also prayed that the Collector may be restrained from deducting the tax at source in terms of said circular.

2. According to the petitioner, since the amount of interest payable on account of delay in payment of enhanced compensation is not liable to be taxed, the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be asked to deduct tax at source.

3. The issue raised in the petition is no longer rest integra. In Bikram Singh and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. : [1997]224ITR551(SC) , the Supreme Court has held that the interest receipt on delayed payment of the compensation, determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under Section 4 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act). It has also been held that Section 194A of the Act had no application for the purpose of this case as it encompasses deduction of the income-tax at source. However, the Court observed that the persons entitled to compensation would be entitled to a spread over of the income for the period for which payment came to be made so as to compute the income for assessing tax for the relevant accounting year. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and the Rule is discharged. The interim order stands vacated. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the concerned authority for spreading over the income to the period for which payment came to be made so that the income for the purpose of assessing tax for the relevant assessment years could be computed. No order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial