2016 (3) TMI 496 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
The Land Acquisition Collector Versus Addl. CIT, TDS Range, Surat
Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of tds u/s 194LA - Held that - The assessee had paid compensation to the land owners but has not deducted the tax u/s 194LA of the Act from such payments as the assessee was under bona fide belief that he was not under any obligation to deduct the tax u/s 194LA of the Act. - The omission on the part of the assessee was inadvertent and there was no mala fide intention. For non-deduction of TDS and delay in filing the TDS, the assessee had paid interest of ₹ 33,480/- and also paid interest of ₹ 54,923/- determined to be payable u/s 201(1A) of the Act ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 2184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The Commissionerr of Income Tax, TDS, The Income Tax Officer (TDS) Versus Chief Accounts Officer, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike
Non deduction of TDS under Section 194LA - land so surrendered by the land owner in favour of BBMP - whether there is compulsory acquisition of land? - ITAT deleted addition - Held that - The provisions of Section 194LA would be applicable only in case of compulsory acquisition, whereas, the lands acquired by BBMP was not by way of compulsory acquisition, but had been surrendered by the land owner under Section 14B of KTCP Act. - In the present case, neither there is compulsory acquisition of the land, nor there is any process adopted for quantification or determination of value of land acquir ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 180 - ITAT BANGALORE
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Dharwad. Versus The Income-tax Officer, TDS Ward, Dharwad
Non deduction of tds u/s 194LA - compensation paid to various persons for acquiring the non-agricultural land - Held that - It is clear that the question of compulsory acquisition will arise only where the compensation cannot be determined by agreement. Sub-sec.3 & 4 will come into play only when there is a failure to determine the compensation through negotiation between State Government and the land owners. - When the compensation is based on an agreement between State Government and owner of the land, no more can we say that it is a compulsory acquisition. Especially so, in view of the ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 540 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Kochi Metro Rail Ltd. Versus Union of India, State of Kerala, The District Collector, Civil Station, The Commissioner of Income Tax
Liability to deduct tax at source - payments of compensation to the persons from whom land was acquired in connection with the project - case of the petitioner that, as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and in particular Section 96 therein, there is an exemption envisaged from income tax in respect of amounts by way of compensation received by landowners - Held that - The provisions under the Income Tax Act, that govern tax deduction at source in connection with payment of amounts as compensation for ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 75 - ITAT HYDERABAD
ACIT (TDS) , TDS Circle-1 (1) , Hyderabad Versus M/s. Greater Hyderabad
Non deduction of tax at source u/s 194LA - assessee paying compensation to the property owners on account of road widening - assessee corporation strongly contended that the acquisition proceedings made as per section 146 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - CIT(A) delted the disallowance - Held that - After considering the provisions of section 146, 147 of GHMC Act and also section 194LA of I.T. Act, 1961, it is clear that sec.146 of HMCA, 1955 is an independent provision for acquiring immovable property by the assessee corporation through an agreement without taking recourse to the ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 134 - ITAT JAIPUR
Jaipur Development Authority Versus The ACIT (TDS) Jaipur
TDS liability u/s 194LA - payments in lieu of the agriculture land acquired by JDA for carrying out its development plans - assessee in default - Held that - From the record, it emerges that the assessee demonstrated its case for no liability of TDs before the ACIT TDS that not only in terms of plain reading of Section 194LA but also furnished the desired information in the proforma and enclosures as advised by the AO to be furnished in the order to hold JDA as notliable under explanation (i) above. Having complied with the requirement, assessee has discharged its onus. The liability of assess ....... - .......
2015 (5) TMI 844 - ITAT KOLKATA
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) , Kolkata Versus M/s. Amba High-Rise Pvt. Limited
Interest received from Bank deposits to the extent as income from other sources.- CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The income from interest by the assessee since is assessable separately under the head income from other sources , therefore, this income cannot be set off against the expenditure incurred by the assessee prior to set up. We accordingly set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) - Decided in favour of revenue. - Addition of capital expenditure claimed under the head loan syndication charges - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - This expenditure under section 40A(2) ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 1100 - ITAT MUMBAI
The ITO (tds) -2 (2) , Mumbai Versus M/s. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority
Non deduction of TDS as per the provisions of section 194L/194LA - Held that - First issue of payment of compensation vis-a-vis TDS under section 194L/194LA of the Act is concerned, the facts on the record show that to implement the scheme of the Government relating to the road widening near the railway tracks, the assessee evacuated the illegal/unauthorised persons in the form of squatters/hutments for which the assessee paid certain compensation to these persons. The fact of the matter is that these occupants were unauthorised and illegal, they were not the real owners of the land, therefore ....... - .......
2014 (11) TMI 638 - ITAT BANGALORE
Chief Accounts Officer, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS)
TDS liability u/s 194LA - voluntary surrender of land - value of development rights There was no compulsory acquisition and was no payment of any monetary consideration Accourding to AO The transfer of land to BBMP though is stated to be free of cost but in reality the owner gets DRCs. The question of determining consideration for transfer can be resolved by valuing the DRCs and for this purpose the best way to determine the value is to rely on the provisions of Sec.50-C of the Act and value the land surrendered as per the guideline values fixed by subregistration for stamp duty valuation and ....... - .......
2014 (8) TMI 114 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur Versus Naya Raipur Development Authority
TDS on Compulsory acquisition u/s 194LA Land acquired by agreement - Whether the land acquired by agreement by the Assessee under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 is compulsory acquisition within the meaning of section 194 LA or not Held that - There is a purchase of the whole or any part of any statutory undertaking under any enactment in that behalf prescribing the terms on which the purchase is to be effected, the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1961 as to compulsory acquisitions of land are excluded u/s 36(1) and the transfer of industries to public ownershi ....... - .......
2014 (6) TMI 609 - ITAT HYDERABAD
GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Chargeability of interest u/s 201(1) of the Act - Non-deduction of TDS u/s 194LA of the Act Structural component of land compensation paid Held that - Assessee has deducted tax on the land portion of the compensation paid to the land owners - If the property was not acquired compulsorily and the order of the CIT(A) in earlier year is applicable as contended by the assessee, it is not understandable why assessee has to deduct tax on the land compensation part alone, as the provisions of section 146 are applicable for both land portion as well as structure portion - Assessee having deducted tax ....... - .......
2014 (4) TMI 170 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kanav Khanna Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax II And Others
Stay application Entitlement for benefit u/s 10(37) of the Act - Compensation received on acquisition of land - Whether the assessee is entitled to the grant of unconditional stay of recovery of demand - Held that - The assessee received a total amount as compensation out of which TDS was deducted as per provisions of Section 194LA of the Act - The assessee showed long term capital gain on the amount of compensation in the income tax return - The agricultural income shown was nil whereas in the computation chart, agricultural income has been shown to be ₹ 4900/- only. - On a query being ....... - .......
2013 (7) TMI 774 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jagmal Singh, Satbir Singh Versus State of Haryana And Another
Deduction for TDS on Compensation u/s 28 of Land acquisition Act - Held that - interest under Section 28 is, unlike under Section 34 of the 1894 Act, an accretion in value and regarded as part of the compensation itself which is not the case of interest under Section 34 - any component of compensation that goes towards the discharge of liability under Section 28 must be taken as part of the compensation to which Section 194 LA shall apply and that compensation being the value of agricultural land, then the exclusion as provided under the Section shall also be attracted. - there was no requirem ....... - .......
2013 (4) TMI 550 - ITAT KOLKATA
Metro Railway Kolkata Versus Income -tax Officer (TDS), Ward 58(1)
TDS liability - Payment of compensation on acquisition of certain immovable property - demands raised on the appellant under section 201 r.w.s. 194 LA for non deduction of tax at source - Held that - The payment to the actual beneficiary is made by the Competent Authority of Metro Railways Kolkata and not by the Dy FA and CAO of Metro Railways Kolkata. No doubt, the tax deduction obligations are on the person who makes payment to the beneficiary, and it was an undisputed position that the payment for land acquisition was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In this matter, as in decided in St ....... - .......
2011 (8) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Leela Bhagwansing Advani & Others Versus Union of India,
constitutional validity of Section 194LA - if the amount of compensation was paid immediately after the Award, then there would have been no question of deducting tax at source under Section 194LA - The object of Section 194LA as per the CBDT Circular No.5 of 2005 dated 15th July 2005 is to curb the tendency of evading taxes by not reporting the income comprised in the compensation received on acquisition of immovable property - the argument tha ....... - .......