9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , has presented the instant civil revision petitions. 2. The respondents herein filed execution petitions on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dharwar, as referred to above. The said matter had come up for consideration before the execution court on June 8, 2004. The execution court after hearing both the sides and after considering the material available on record has passed a common order in respect of 15 execution petitions as referred to above, by holding that deduction of income-tax on interest payable under section 28 or 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is not permissible and the objections raised by the JDR-petitioner herein was rejected. Assailing the correctness of the impugned common orders passed by the exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t pleader appearing for the respondent-LAO, have not brought to the notice of the court below, the settled proposition of law as referred to above. Further, he submitted that following the judgment of the apex court and the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Shankar v. Union of India [2003] 260 ITR 284, the court below has held that the respondents-claimants are liable to pay income-tax on the belated payment of interest received thereon. Therefore, the court below held that the respondents-claimants are liable to pay income-tax regarding the belated payment of interest received by them. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned common order passed by the execution court is liable to be set aside. 4. The respondents are serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in Rana Pratap Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer [1998] Tax LR 1032 (AP) ; [1998] (2) LACC 674 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court while dealing with section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and section 194 of the Income-tax Act. After careful perusal of the relevant extract of the judgment at paragraph 14 wherein it is held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the courts cannot give order for deduction of income-tax at source from the amount of compensation. Provisions of section 194 of the Income-tax Act are not applicable to the compensation amount payable under the Land Acquisition Act. The said reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent has been accepted and therefore the award passed by the trial court is without refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipt exigible to income-tax and it is income and the claimants are liable to pay the tax as provided under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. 10. The execution court further committed a grave error in not considering the relevant provisions which are applicable to the case pending adjudication before the court below. Sections 194A and 194L have not been referred to except the judgment of the apex court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court as referred to above. In those cases what has been held and considered is regarding deduction of income-tax at source from the amount of compensation. But in those cases, whether the claimants are liable to pay tax has not been considered nor decided. If that is so, the court below ought not to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
