Allowed

Satish Dnyanoba Jagtap and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC3 May 2017WP/5035/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court examined the erroneous deduction of income tax at source on compensation for land acquisition by the National Highway Authority. Relying on Sections 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 96 of the RFR Act, 2013, the Court held the deduction illegal and directed the refund.

What did the court decide?

Refund of the amount deducted at source directed by the respondent to be made to the petitioner within six months from the date of the order.

Satish Dnyanoba Jagtap and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp5035.15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5035 OF 2017

¶5

SATISH DNYANOBA JAGTAP AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶6

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kale Ajeet B.
AGP for Respondent no.5 : Mr. A.R.Kale
Adv.for resp.no.1 : Mr. Ajay Talhar

¶9

Adv. for resp.nos. 2 and 3 : Mr. Alok Sharma
Adv. for resp.no.4 : Mr. L.M.Kulkarni

¶10

.....

¶11

CORAM: R.M.BORDE AND K.L.WADANE, JJ.

¶12

DATED: 3rd May, 2017

¶13

O R D E R :

¶14

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶15

With the consent of learned counsel for the
respective parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing at the admission stage.

¶16

2.It is not a matter of dispute that the
National High Way authority has erroneously
deducted income tax at source. Section 194LA of

¶17

the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under : -

¶18

“ 194LA. Payment of compensation on acquisition of certain immovable property .—Any person responsible for

¶19

2wp5035.15

¶20

paying to a resident any sum, being in the
nature of compensation or the enhanced
compensation or the consideration or the
enhanced consideration on account of
compulsory acquisition, under any law for

¶21

the time being in force, of any immovable
property (other than agricultural land),
shall, at the time of payment of such sum
in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft
or by any other mode, whichever is
earlier, deduct an amount equal to ten per
cent of such sum as income-tax thereon:

¶22

Provided that no deduction shall be made
under this section where the amount of
such payment or, as the case may be, the
aggregate amount of such payments to a
resident during the financial year does
not exceed one hundred thousand rupees.

¶23

Explanation. —For the purposes of this section,—

¶24

( i )"agricultural land" means agricultural land in India including land situate in any area referred to in items ( a ) and ( b ) of sub-clause ( iii ) of clause ( 14 ) of

¶25

( ii ) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building.”

¶26

3.Section 96 of the Right for Fair

¶27

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 reads
thus : -

¶28

“ 96. No income tax or stamp duty
shall be levied on any award or
agreement made under this Act, except

¶29

¶30

wp5035.15

¶31

under Section 46 and no person
claiming under such award or
agreement shall be liable to pay any
fee for copy of the same. “

¶32

4. In view of the provisions of the Act of

¶33

2013 r/w the provisions of Income Tax Act, it was
an error on the part of the National High Way
Authority to deduct the amount towards tax and
remit the same.

¶34

5.In view of the above, the petition

¶35

presented by the petitioner seeking refund of the
amount deducted from his compensation being
illegal deserves to be allowed.

¶36

6.The respondent shall refund the amount
deducted at source to the petitioner within a
period of six months from today.

¶37

costs.

¶38

 (K.L.WADANE, J.) (R.M.BORDE, J.)
dbm/wp5035.17

Satish Dnyanoba Jagtap and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Dnyanoba Jagtap and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kantilal Pandharinath Bhukan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satish Nivrutti Talekar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rohit Sainath Mupde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd. Having Its Administrative Officer Mumbai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Wangi Village Panchayat through Its Sarpanch Ratanbai Balasaheb Rohokle and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kawle Roadlines through Its Proprietor Apparao Khandojirao Kawle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others