- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rama Bai And Others v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P, Hyderabad And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion consists solely of an order referencing multiple matters—Tax Ref. Case No. 3 of 1976, Tax Ref. Case Nos. 1-3 of 1978, C.A. No. 810 of 1974, and Civil Appeal No. 3027 of 1988. No additional factual or procedural details are provided.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The text supplied is limited to the issuance of an order; it does not include any reasoning or analytical discussion by the court.
Holding and Implications
The final decision or operative holding is not specified in the provided text.
Because the specific outcome and rationale are not disclosed, no immediate legal implications or precedential value can be identified from the information supplied.
1. The question involved in these cases is regarding the point of time at which the interest payable under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894) accrues or arises, where such interest is paid on enhanced compensation awarded on a reference under Section 18 of the said Act or further appeal to the High Court and/or Supreme Court. Some of the matters before us are appeals and some are references under Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These references were made directly to this Court in view of the fact that there was a conflict of decisions among the High Courts on the above issue. We do not think it is necessary to refer to those decisions because we find that the question at issue is now concluded by the decision of this Court in CIT v. T.N.K Govindarajulu Chetty 1987 Supp SCC 320 , 1988 SCC (Tax) 18 , (1987) 165 ITR 231. Though the judgment is a short one, it deals directly with the point in issue. It is also clear, from a perusal of the judgment of the High Court (1973) 87 ITR 22 which was upheld by the Supreme Court in this matter that the issue has been considered by this Court in all its aspects. The principle of the decision also derives support from the earlier decision of this Court in Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. ACED (1980) 2 SCC 1 , 1980 SCC (Tax) 156 , (1980) 122 ITR 21. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeals before us (C.A No. 810 of 1974 and C.A No. 3027 of 1988) have to be allowed and the references made under Section 257 (Tax Ref. Cases Nos. 3 of 1976 & 1-3 of 1978) have to be answered by saying that the question of accrual of interest will have to be determined in accordance with the above decision of this Court. The effect of the decision, we may clarify, is that the interest cannot be taken to have accrued on the date of the order of the court granting enhanced compensation but has to be taken as having accrued year after year from the date of delivery of possession of the lands till the date of such order.
2. These matters are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
Civil Misc. Petition No. 14921-25 of 1978 in C.A No. 810 of 1974
3. The petition have already been allowed and we have also heard Sri T.A Ramachandran, advocate, appearing for them. No further orders are necessary on these petitions.
Civil Misc. Petition No. 11123 of 1973 in C.A No. 810 of 1974
4. We have been informed that the vakalatnama has since been filed. No further order is necessary on this petition.
Alert