9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate of Odisha. The NPV payment is a king of a compensation for using forest land for non-forest purpose pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court. The payment of the NPV in this case, like in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd., has to be regarded as a revenue expenditure in accordance with the ration in the Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. case, since it was a one-time payment made to remove an obstacle from the path of the assessee carrying on its business operations. - Decided against revenue. - ITAT/295/2017 IA No.GA/1/2017 (Old No.GA/2836/2017) - - - Dated:- 10-12-2021 - THE HON BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...for the appellant Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. ...fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the revenue was dismissed. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal have referred to a judgment reported at 107 ITR 39 (Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs. CIT), where a similar question arose. A licence in respect of a certain area had been granted in favour of the assessee in that case for undertaking mining operations. The railways purported to set up railway tracks and even a station on the land without reference to the assessee and unmindful of the assessee s underground rights in respect thereof. The dispute between the assessee and the railways was resolved upon the relevant stakeholders including the assessee, the railways and the State Government agreeing to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as is evident from paragraph 11 of the report, the fee was paid for obtaining a prospecting licence and it was such fee that entitled the business to be conducted in the relevant area. The distinction between the judgment in R.B.Seth Moolchand Sugachand and the judgment in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. is that in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. there was a pre-existing right and the expenditure was incurred not to assert a new right but to exercise a pre-existing right. In the present case, it is the same as in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. since the mining licence was previously issued in favour of the assessee and the payment of the NPV did not extend the area of the assessee s mining operations, it merely removed an impediment in the carrying on of the operations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
