Case Law Details
ITO Vs Sri. Harimurali Sreedhara Panicka (ITAT Cochin)
The solitary reason for not granting of benefit of section 10(37) of the I.T.Act in respect of acquisition of urban agricultural land was that it was not a compulsory acquisition, but only executed through a negotiated sale deed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India & Others (supra) had categorically held merely because the sale price is fixed through a negotiated settlement will not take away the proceedings from the Land Acquisition Act when the relevant provision of the Act are invoked.
In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was followed, only price was fixed upon a negotiated settlement. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), we hold that the acquisition of the urban agricultural land was a compulsory acquisition and the same would be entitled to the benefit enumerated in section 10(37) of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal at the instance of the Revenue and the Cross Objection preferred by the assessee are directed against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)’s order dated 13.03.2017. The relevant assessment year is 2012-2013.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
