Dismissed

The Commissioner of It - II Nashik v. Ramsingh Ishram Pawar

Bombay HC23 Mar 2015TA/9/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these tax appeals, the appellant argued that interest on enhanced land acquisition compensation is taxable. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, observing that the tax effect was below the threshold to invoke the Supreme Court circular preventing questioning of tax liability below Rs. 7,000.

What did the court decide?

All appeals are dismissed. No costs awarded.

The Commissioner of It - II Nashik Vs Ramsingh Ishram Pawar — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

ta13.06

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

TAX APPEAL NO.13 OF 2006

¶6

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik-422002.

¶7

...APPELLANT
 VERSUS

¶8

Shri Ramsing Ishram Pawar,
R/o- and Post at Jinshi,
Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon.

¶9

...RESPONDENT
 WITH

¶10

 TAX APPEAL NO.6 OF 2006

¶11

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik-422002.

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

 VERSUS

¶14

Shri Ramsing Ishram Pawar,
R/o- and Post at Jinshi,
Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon.

¶15

...RESPONDENT
 WITH

¶16

 TAX APPEAL NO.7 OF 2006

¶17

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik-422002.

¶18

...APPELLANT

¶19

ta13.06

¶20

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

Shri Ramsing Ishram Pawar,
R/o- and Post at Jinshi,
Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon.

¶23

...RESPONDENT

¶24

 WITH
 TAX APPEAL NO.8 OF 2006

¶25

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik-422002.

¶26

...APPELLANT
 VERSUS
Shri Ramsing Ishram Pawar,
R/o- and Post at Jinshi,
Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT

¶27

 WITH

¶28

 TAX APPEAL NO.9 OF 2006

¶29

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik-422002.
...APPELLANT
 VERSUS
Shri Ramsing Ishram Pawar,
R/o- and Post at Jinshi,
Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
 WITH

¶30

ta13.06

¶31

¶32

TAX APPEAL NO.10 OF 2006

¶33

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik-422002.

¶34

...APPELLANT
 VERSUS

¶35

Shri Ramsing Ishram Pawar,
R/o- and Post at Jinshi,
Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon.

¶36

...RESPONDENT

¶37

 WITH

¶38

TAX APPEAL NO.11 OF 2006

¶39

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik-422002.

¶40

...APPELLANT

¶41

 VERSUS

¶42

Shri Ramsing Ishram Pawar,
R/o- and Post at Jinshi,
Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon.

¶43

...RESPONDENT

¶44

 WITH

¶45

TAX APPEAL NO.12 OF 2006

¶46

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik-422002.

¶47

...APPELLANT

¶48

 VERSUS

¶49

Shri Ramsing Ishram Pawar,
R/o- and Post at Jinshi,
Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon.

¶50

...RESPONDENT

¶51

ta13.06

¶52

¶53

...

¶54

 Mr.Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Appellant.
 None present for Respondent.

¶55

...

¶56

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶57

 DATE : 23RD MARCH, 2015

¶58

ORDER :

¶59

1.In all these Appeals, Mr. Sharma, the
learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has

¶60

committed error in holding that the interest on
the enhanced compensation amount in proceedings
arising under the Land Acquisition Act is not
taxable. The learned counsel submits that the same
is taxable. The learned counsel relies on the
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bikram
Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, reported in
1996-EQ(S.C.)-0-1408.

¶61

2.The contention of Mr. Sharma, the learned

¶62

counsel that interest on enhanced amount of
compensation in proceedings under the Land

¶63

ta13.06

¶64

¶65

Acquisition Act is taxable, is settled proposition
in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶66

Court in the case of Bikram Singh vs. Land
Acquisition Collector, referred supra. However,
the Respondent relies on the Circular i.e.
Instruction No.1979 dated 27th March 2000, which
states that the Department should not file Appeals
before the High Court when the tax effect is below
Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh).

¶67

3.Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for Appellant
submits that if it is pertaining to question of
law, the same can be raised and the Circular will
not come in the way. The counsel submits that in
such a case the Circular would not apply.

¶68

4.The Division Bench of this Court in a
case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Zoeb Y.

¶69

Topiwala, (2005) 199 C.T.R. (Bom.) 656, has
observed in Para 5 as under:-

¶70

ta13.06

¶71

¶72

"5. The above instructions dt. 27th March,
2000, reflects the policy decision taken
by the Board not to raise questions of law
where the tax effect is less than the
amount prescribed in the instructions with
a view to reduce litigations before High
Courts and Supreme Court. The circular is
binding on the Revenue. There is no
justification to proceed with the appeal
having tax effect less than Rs.7000."

¶73

5.In the present matters also the interest
liability is in the range of Rs.61,000/- to
Rs.63,000/-.

¶74

6.Even if the matters are considered on

¶75

merits, the principle of 'spreading over the
income' will have to be applied as is held by the

¶76

Apex Court in the case of Bikram Singh vs. Land
Acquisition Collector, referred supra. If the
principle of 'spreading over the income' is
applied, the amount would not come within the
taxable limits.

¶77

ta13.06

¶78

¶79

7.Considering the aforesaid aspects of the

¶80

matters, all the Appeals are dismissed. No costs.

¶81

[A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]
asb/MAR15

The Commissioner of It - II Nashik v. Ramsingh Ishram Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of It - II Nashik v. Ramsingh Ishram Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mankarnabai Gajrajui Somvanshi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sanjay Harishankar Parasher Vs the State of Mah. an Ors.

Rajaram Shankar Dolas Vs the Executvie Engineer, PWD Division, Ahmednagar

Inderlal Tulsomal Kamora Gpa Vijay Narayandas Rizwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shahaji Sambhaji Patil Umrikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Inderlal Tulsomal Kamora Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.