M/S. ADITYA MINERALS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4858/1989Supreme Court1999 INSC 38007 September 1999Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE, S.S.M. QUADRI, D.P. MOHAPATRA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the instant case was on a par with Pingle Industries Ltd. and distinguished it from Gotan Lime Syndicate. The Court noted a material difference in facts between the two cited cases. In Gotan Lime Syndicate, the payments were annual royalties related to raw material extraction, not for securing an enduring advantage. In contrast, Pingle Industries Ltd. involved a lump-sum payment in installments for acquiring a capital asset of enduring benefit. The Court found that in the present case, the assessee was required to pay in advance the rent for the entire fifteen-year lease period in the form of a 'deposit'. This deposit served as a guarantee for due performance and was adjustable against monthly rent. The Court reasoned that this advance payment for the entire lease period, intended as a guarantee for due performance over a long term, constituted a capital expenditure, not a revenue expenditure. Therefore, the claim for deduction as revenue expenditure was rightly negatived. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant-assessee obtained a mining lease for fifteen years at a monthly rent of Rs. 35 per acre. A crucial stipulation in the lease deed required the assessee to deposit an amount equivalent to the total rent for the entire fifteen-year period with the lessor as a guarantee for due performance. This deposit was adjustable against the monthly rent and did not carry any interest. For the relevant assessment years, the assessee claimed this deposited rent amount as revenue expenditure. The revenue authorities, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court all rejected this claim. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to a larger bench due to an apparent conflict between two previous Supreme Court judgments: Gotan Lime Syndicate and Pingle Industries Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 10,752 paid by the assessee in the accounting year was not expenditure allowable as a deduction in computing the business profit of the assessee-company? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the rent amount deposited was revenue expenditure. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gotan Lime Syndicate, which held that royalty payments related to raw material extraction were not for securing an enduring advantage and were thus revenue in nature. Revenue's contention: The revenue authorities argued that the payment was capital in nature. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pingle Industries Ltd., which distinguished cases involving lump-sum payments for acquiring capital assets of enduring benefit. The revenue authorities contended that the present case was similar to Pingle Industries Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 12 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

) ) \ MIS. ADITYA MINERALS PVT. LTD. v. ,,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 [S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE, S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961 A B Revenue-Expenditure-Assessee obtaining mining lease for 15 years- C Amount equal to rent of lease for fall period deposited with lessor as guarantee and it was adjustable against rent of every month-Held, the claim of assessee that the rent amount was revenue expenditure was rightly negatived by Revenue authorities.

The appellant-assessee was granted lease of certain land for excavation D purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 35 per acre. It was stipulated that the lessee would deposit with the lessor by way of guarantee for due performance of the lease deed for fifteen years, the amount equal to the rent of lease for full period of lease which would be adjustable against rent of every month and the guarantee deposit would not carry any interest. For the relevant E assessment year the assessee claimed the rent amount as revenue expenditure. The claim was negatived by the revenue authorities, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as also by the High Court. Ag

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →