INSTRUCTION
CBDT_instruction_2
CBDT issues fresh Instruction on IDS, 2016
CASE LAWS
2017-TIOL-21-SC-IT
SHREE NILKANTH DEVELOPERS Vs PR CIT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: January 13, 2017)
Income Tax - Sections 245C & 245D
Keywords: SETCOM - payment of taxes & immunity from penalty Dated: January 13, 2017
The assessee is a partnership firm. The Revenue conducted a survey u/s 133A at the project site of the firm. During the survey, statements of manager and one of the partners of the firm were recorded. Authorities also seized and impounded documents and other materials. The firm filed an application before SETCOM requesting for settlement of case. SETCOM passed order u/s 245D(1) allowing the application to proceed further. SETCOM passed a further order u/s 245D(2C). The SETCOM accepted the assessee's declaration of further additional income of Rs. 56 lacs, over and above what was already declared in the application for settlement and permitted assessee to make payment of tax on such income in two installments. In the process, SETCOM levied interest upto the date of passing of the order u/s 245D(1) granted immunity from penalty and prosecution.
On appeal, the High Court held that SETCOM completely ignored the opposition of Revenue in this respect on the ground that it was difficult to ascertain with degree of accuracy the undisclosed income on the basis of impounded documents, thus the order of SETCOM was set aside only on this ground.
Having heard the matter, the Supreme Court admits the case of assessee, grants leave to defend its case, gives permission to expedite hearing process and approach this Court for hearing of the matter once the service and pleadings are complete.
Leave granted
2017-TIOL-20-SC-IT
SHREYANS INDUSTRIES LTD Vs CIT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: January 13, 2017)
Income tax - Sections 142 & 143
Keywords: capital expenditure - revenue expenditure - tangible asset - proprietary rights & building account.
Whether expenditure incurred on affortation along a drain excavated for discharge of effluents by the assessee is capital in nature - YES: SC
The assessee runs a paper mill at Ahmedgarh and discharges effluents. It had applied to the Pollution Control Board and the Forest Department, for permission to discharge effluents into the Tallewal drain. The Department of Environment and Forest prepared a proposal to allow excavation of an open drain, through forest land, to enable the assessee to discharge effluents into the Tallewal drain, subject to certain conditions. Thereafter, the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary granted approval for excavating a drain through forest land. Assessee was to pay a considerable amount to the Forest Department for raising compensatory aforestation on both sides of drain.
The High Court held that expense incurred upon construction of the drain for release of effluents had conferred benefit of an enduring nature upon the assessee.
Having heard the matter, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee and confirmed the decision of High Court that if an assessee had acquired an asset of enduring benefit having exclusive rights for its usage, such expense is capital in nature.
Assessee's SLP dismissed
