Section 269K — Payment or Deposit of Compensation

CHAPTER XX-A — ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN CERTAIN CASES OF TRANSFER TO COUNTERACT EVASION OF TAX

Section 269K — Payment or deposit of compensation

Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise

Status: Historic / spent. Chapter XX-A was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, with effect from 15 November 1972, and does not apply to transfers of immovable property made after 30 September 1986 (section 269RR). It stands superseded by Chapter XX-C and, for current transactions, by section 50C / section 56(2)(x).

Finance Act, 2026: No amendment. The Finance Act, 2026 does not touch any provision of Chapter XX-A.

Mechanism: Provides for the manner of payment of compensation to persons entitled, and for its deposit (e.g. in court) where there is dispute, defect in title or competing claims.

Litigation profile: Procedural disbursement provision; no distinct merits litigation.

A. COMMENTARY

Mechanism

Section 269K governs how compensation determined under section 269J is paid out, and obliges deposit where title is in dispute or claims compete — a familiar acquisition-law safeguard that keeps disputes about entitlement separate from the fact of acquisition.

Candour

This is administrative disbursement machinery with no reported merits authority of its own. The cognate authorities are relevant only to the antecedent valuation that fixes the sum payable.

B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim)

Reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended up to the Finance Act, 2025 (the Finance Act, 2026 makes no change). Page-header/footer artefacts of the source PDF have been removed; wording, clause-lettering and punctuation are unaltered.

Payment or deposit of compensation.

269K. (1) The amount of compensation payable in accordance with the provisions of section 269J for the acquisition of any immovable property shall be tendered to the person or persons entitled thereto, as soon as may be, after the property becomes vested in the Central Government under sub-section (4) of section 269-I :

Provided that in a case falling under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 269J, the amounts referred to in clause (i) and clause (ii) of that proviso shall be tendered to the person or persons entitled thereto, as soon as may be, after the property becomes vested in the Central Government under section 269-I, and the amount referred to in clause (iii) of the said proviso shall be tendered on the date on which it would be payable in accordance with the agreement between the parties concerned, and where such amount is payable in instalments on different dates, then in such instalments on those dates :

Providedfurther that in any case where a reference is or has to be made under sub-section (2) of section 269J to the court for the determination of the amount by which the compensation payable under sub-section

(1) of that section shall be reduced or increased, the amount of such compensation as reduced or increased by the amount estimated in that behalf by the competent authority for the purposes of such reference shall be tendered as aforesaid.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation amongst persons claiming to be entitled thereto, the Central Government shall deposit in the court the compensation required to be tendered under sub-section (1) and refer such dispute for the decision of the court and the decision of the court thereon shall be final.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the persons entitled to compensation do not consent to receive it, or if there is no person competent to alienate the immovable property, or if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation, the Central Government shall deposit in the court the compensation required to be tendered under sub-section (1) and refer the matter for the decision of the court :

Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of the compensation for any immovable property acquired under this Chapter to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.

(4) If the Central Government fails to tender under sub-section (1) or deposit under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) the whole or any part of the compensation required to be tendered or deposited thereunder within thirty days of the date on which the immovable property to which the compensation relates becomes vested in the Central Government under sub-section (4) of section 269-I, the Central Government shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum reckoned from the day immediately following the date of expiry of the said period up to the date on which it so tenders or deposits such compensation or, as the case may be, such part of the compensation.

(5) Where any amount of compensation (including interest, if any, thereon) has been deposited in the court under this section, the court may, either of its own motion or on an application made by or on behalf of any party interested or claiming to be interested in such amount, order the same to be invested in such Government or other securities as it may think proper, and may direct the interest or other proceeds of any such investment to be accumulated and paid in such manner as will, in its opinion, give the parties interested therein the same benefit therefrom as they might have had from the immovable property in respect whereof such amount has been deposited or as near thereto as may be.

C. AUTHORITIES

Candour rule: a disbursement provision with no direct authority; valuation authorities are cited only for the antecedent quantum.

Cognate — antecedent valuation of the sum payable

CIT, West Bengal-II v. Madho Properties Ltd. — Calcutta High Court, per Dipak Kumar Sen & C.K. Banerji JJ (decided 12 September 1980)

Held The 'belting method' of valuing urban land (the front belt valued highest and successive rear belts at a discount by distance from the road) is a scientific and acceptable mode of arriving at fair market value when supported by data; it was approved following Mathura Prosad Rajgharia v. State of West Bengal (SC) and Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector, Ranchi (SC).

Also Reaffirmed that the section 269C(2) presumptions cannot be invoked at the initiation stage; the Tribunal's adoption of the belting method was upheld and the Revenue's appeal dismissed.