Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 – Finance Act, 2016
S. 183 : Refund of tax- Adjustment of tax paid under the schme against tax payable on regular assessment -Tax in respect of voluntarily disclosed income not refundable –Application was rejected on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) was already issued – Revenue was to be directed to adjust amount which had been deposited by assessee for the tax liability for the Asst year 2014-15 . [ S.191 ]

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void – Property under attachment – Alternative remedy -Purchase of property is held to be void- If petitioner’s claim was that property was not liable for such attachment, then she had to make a claim before Tax Recovery Officer – Writ is not maintainable .[ Sch. II , R. 11, Art .226 ]

S. 261 : Appeal – Supreme Court –Strictures – Delay of 596 days- Misleading statement about pendency of similar appeal- Petition was dismissed – Awarded cost of Rs 10 lakhs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee .

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Issue not raised before Tribunal, could not be allowed to be urged before High Court in appeal- However, only an issue of jurisdiction would be allowed, even if same was not raised before Tribunal – Disallowance of expenditure in respect of strategic investment- Alternative claim was raised before the Court was that disallowance cannot be in excess of total exempt income – As the alternative claim was not raised before the Tribunal the High Court declined to entertain the claim [S.14A,254(1), R.8D ]

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Failure to remove objections – Prothonotary and Senior Master is not a judicial Officer – He has no power to condone the delay – Application with a delay of 958 days seeking restoration of its appeal – Restructuring of office of department and thereupon shifting of files to new independent/dedicated Commissionerate – Dismissed the appeal by observing that revenue authorities failed to remove office objections within prescribed period and, moreover, explanation offered did not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such enormous delay, revenue’s application for restoration of appeal was to be declined .[Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule 986 of 1980 ]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal –Powers- Deemed dividend –Buy back of shares -Tribunal has power to give directions for fresh enquiry into aspects of subject matter of appeal filed before it either suo motu or on any grounds raised by either party to appeal which have not been investigated or enquired into by lower authorities earlier and which may result in enhancement of tax liability of assessee – Direction is held to be valid .[ S.2(22) ( e ),115QA ]

S. 245D : Settlement Commission – Failure to make full and true disclosure of undisclosed income with regard to property and bank accounts held abroad –Rejection of application is held to be valid [ S. 132(4),245C ]

S. 192 : Deduction at source – Salary – Perquisite –Since contributions made by assessee were to recoup deficiency suffered by said Educational Society for meeting its educational requirements and burden borne per child per month by assessee had never crossed Rs. 1000, no perquisite could be said to be arose in hands of employees of assessee- legislation amended rule 3(e) only for period subsequent to 2001, to include concessional education facility, assessee could not be held liable to recover tax for assessment years prior to such amendment for contribution of concessional facility given to employees- Not liable to deduct tax at source.[ S.17(2), 201(1)]

S. 158BC : Block assessment – Unexplained expenditure –Cost of construction valuation report- Since no undisclosed income was detected as a result of search, and amounts in question had been found to have been entered in regulars books of account of assessee, inquiry, if any, in respect of valuation of building was permissible only in course of regular assessment proceedings and, thus, addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted.[ S.69C ]

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) – There was no statutory bar for Assessing Officer to rectify assessment order even if an appeal was pending against it – Assessee is directed to file objections before Assessing Officer. [ S. 250 ]