Smt. P. MAHALAKSHMI and others VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
2004 P T D 2168
[255 I T R 647]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: B. P. Jeevan Reddy and Suhas C. Sen, JJ
Smt. P. MAHALAKSHMI and others
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
Civil Appeals Nos.3468 to 3476 of 1984, decided on /01/.
rd
April, 1996. (Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October, 13 and 14, 1981, of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.R. Nos.83, 101 to 105, 113, 114 and 118 of 1978).
Income‑tax‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑Capital gains‑‑‑Portion of property belonging to assessee acquired‑‑ Statutory compensation for injury to un acquired portion‑‑‑Part of full value of consideration for portion acquired‑‑‑Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.23(1)‑‑‑Indian, Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.45 & 48.
From the decision of the High Court (see (1982) 134 ITR 428) that where, in computing the compensation for acquisition of a portion of land the injurious effect on the unacquired portion is taken into account as specified under the head "Fourthly" in section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, what is awarded is the full consideration of the portion of land acquired and has to be taken into account for the purpose of arriving at the capital gains, the assessees preferred appeals to the Supreme Court:
Held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that the amount awarded under the head "Fourthly" stood on the same footing as the amount awarded under any other head and no distinction was permissible as between them: all of them represented the compensation awarded for the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
CIT v. Smt. P. Mahalakshmi (1982) 134 ITR 428 affirmed.
Gopal Jain, Advocate, for Mukul Mudgal, Advocate for Appellant.
Manoj Arora, Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court (see (1982) 134 ITR 428). The question in short is‑‑‑Whether the compensation awarded tinder the head "Fourthly" in subsection (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does, or does not, represent the compensation for the land acquired. Section 23(1) reads as follows:
"23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.‑‑‑(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall, take, into consideration‑‑‑
Firstly, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under, section 4, subsection (1); ,
Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the collector' taking possession thereof;
Thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested at the time of the collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;
Fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested at the time of the collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earning;
Fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land, by the collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and
Sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the collector's taking possession of the land."
The High Court has held, and, in our opinion, rightly, that the amount awarded under the said head stands on the ; same footing as the amount awarded under any other head in the said subsection and that no distinction as between them is permissible. All of them represent the compensation awarded for the land acquired under the Act. The High Court was right in answering the question referred to it in the negative, i.e, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
M.B.A./1113/FCAppeals dismissed.