COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA V. HINDUSTAN HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LIMITED INSC 151; AIR 1986 SC 1805; 1986 SCR 390; 1986 SCC 641; 1986 JT 2; 1986 SCALE 142: Difference between revisions
(Supreme Court Of India Cases) |
(Cases) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons | |||
Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons and Topandas Kundanmal were relied on by the Gujarat High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd., 117 I.T.R. 849 for reaffirming that it was on the final determination of the amount of compensation that the right to such income in the nature of compensation would arise or accrue and till then there was no liability in praesenti in respect of the additional amount of compensation claimed by the owner of the land. | |||
It is unnecessary to refer to all the cases cited before us. It is sufficient to point out that there is a clear distinction between cases such as the present one, where the right to receive payment is in dispute and it is not a question of merely quantifying the amount to be received, and cases where the right to receive payment is admitted and the quantification only of the amount payable is left to be determined in accordance with settled or accepted principles. We are of opinion that the High Court is right in the view taken by it and, therefore, this appeal must be dismissed. | It is unnecessary to refer to all the cases cited before us. It is sufficient to point out that there is a clear distinction between cases such as the present one, where the right to receive payment is in dispute and it is not a question of merely quantifying the amount to be received, and cases where the right to receive payment is admitted and the quantification only of the amount payable is left to be determined in accordance with settled or accepted principles. We are of opinion that the High Court is right in the view taken by it and, therefore, this appeal must be dismissed. | ||
The appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. | The appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. | ||
[[Category: | <!-- | ||
NewPP limit report | |||
Cached time: 20240702180247 | |||
Cache expiry: 86400 | |||
Reduced expiry: false | |||
Complications: | |||
CPU time usage: 0.000 seconds | |||
Real time usage: 0.000 seconds | |||
Preprocessor visited node count: 1/1000000 | |||
Post‐expand include size: 0/2097152 bytes | |||
Template argument size: 0/2097152 bytes | |||
Highest expansion depth: 1/100 | |||
Expensive parser function count: 0/100 | |||
Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 | |||
Unstrip post‐expand size: 0/5000000 bytes | |||
--><!-- | |||
Transclusion expansion time report | |||
100.00% 0.000 1 -total | |||
--><!-- Saved in parser cache with key aklcwuks_wiki-wiki_:pcache:idhash:248454-0!canonical and timestamp 20240702180247 and revision id 388943. Rendering was triggered because: edit-page | |||
--> | |||
[[Category:Cases]] | |||
Latest revision as of 23:32, 2 July 2024
Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons and Topandas Kundanmal were relied on by the Gujarat High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd., 117 I.T.R. 849 for reaffirming that it was on the final determination of the amount of compensation that the right to such income in the nature of compensation would arise or accrue and till then there was no liability in praesenti in respect of the additional amount of compensation claimed by the owner of the land.
It is unnecessary to refer to all the cases cited before us. It is sufficient to point out that there is a clear distinction between cases such as the present one, where the right to receive payment is in dispute and it is not a question of merely quantifying the amount to be received, and cases where the right to receive payment is admitted and the quantification only of the amount payable is left to be determined in accordance with settled or accepted principles. We are of opinion that the High Court is right in the view taken by it and, therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.