ITA No.228 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** ITA No.228 of 2004 & other connected cases being ITA Nos.229, 230, 240, 234, 237 and 239 of 2004 Date of decision : 15.7.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad .....Appellant Vs. Man Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Avinash Jhingan, Advocate, for the respondent --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL (J):- 1. This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 228, 229, 230, 234, 237, 239 and 240 of 2004, filed by the appellants, as learned counsel for the parties state that common question of law is involved in all these appeals. The facts are being taken from ITA No.228 of 2004. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of ITAT Bench 'SMC-I', Delhi, passed in ITA No.454/Del/2001 for the Assessment Year 1997-98. 3. Appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law, proposed by the Revenue; (i)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in applying the ratio laid ITA No.228 of 2004 -2- down in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan and Land Development Trust Limited in the present case even after insertion of Section 45 (5) in the Income Tax Act specifically for charging of enhanced compensation in the year of receipt. (ii)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that neither additional compensation nor interest accrued or received thereon can be taxed unless it attains finality from the Highest Court in spite of the fact that the additional compensation as well as interest has actually been received by the assessee. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not disputed that after the insertion of Section 45 (5), the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan and Land Development Trust Ltd.(supra), shall not apply, as held in subsequent judgment in CIT, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshayam (HUF), (2009) 315 ITR Page 1. 6. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and above questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on each file of the connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 15th July, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) akm JUDGE