R. B. SETH MOOLCHAND SUGANCHAND vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2020/1972Supreme Court[1973] 2 S.C.R. 36019 September 1972Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, HANS RAJ KHANNA R. B. SETH MOOLCHAND SUGANCHAND12 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a firm engaged in mining, took a 20-year lease for areas previously worked for mica. The lease involved payment for existing mica scrap on the surface and a fee of Re. 1/- per acre per year for a prospecting licence. The assessee claimed 1/20th of the lease payment and the prospecting licence fee as revenue expenditure. The Income-Tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed these claims. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the payment for mica scrap as revenue expenditure but disallowed the remaining lease payment and the prospecting licence fee as capital expenditure. The High Court, on reference, upheld the Tribunal's decision against the assessee. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the expenditure incurred for the lease of the mica mine, excluding the amount for mica scrap, was capital expenditure. The Court reasoned that the lease conferred a right of an enduring nature to excavate mica from the land, even though prior operations had made extraction easier. The payment was for acquiring the right to extract and remove minerals, which is considered a capital asset. The Court distinguished this from cases where raw material is already extracted and on the surface, which would be stock-in-trade. The Court also held that the fee paid for the prospecting licence was capital expenditure. The term 'prospecting licence' indicated that mining operations had not yet commenced as a mine. The fee was paid to initiate the business of investigating, searching, and finding minerals, and thus was of a capital nature, not equivalent to a payment for stock-in-trade. The one-year period of the licence did not make it revenue expenditure. Therefore, both questions were answered in the negative, against the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the expenditure incurred for the lease of the mica mine, excluding the amount for mica scrap, is revenue or capital expenditure, specifically concerning the interpretation of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Whether the fee paid for the prospecting licence is revenue or capital expenditure, also under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Assessee's arguments: The assessee contended that both the lease payment (1/20th share) and the prospecting licence fee were revenue expenditures. For the lease, the argument implicitly suggests it was for acquiring stock-in-trade or for the ongoing business. For the prospecting licence, it was argued to be a licence fee, not creating an interest in land, and potentially akin to a purchase price for stock-in-trade, citing Rule 23 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1943. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that the lease payment was for acquiring a right of an enduring character, hence capital. For the prospecting licence, it was argued to be an initial expenditure for procuring a right to prospect, initiating the business, and not revenue in nature.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

360 R. B. SETH MOOLCHAND SUGANCHAND v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI September 19, 1972 [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.)

Income tax Act (11 of 1922) s. 10 (2) (xv)-Amount paid for lease of mica mine already worked and /et for prospecting licence-Capital or .J~eve1u1e expenditure-TestJ.

The assessee, a firm carrying on mining business, took on lease for 20 years certain areas which bad been worked previously by others, aull in which mica pillars had been exposed by those earlier minln• operations.

Mica scrap was also lying on the surface. The assessee paid a sum of money, part di which was towards the- mica s~rap lying on the surface.

The assessee also paid at Re. 1/- per acre per year as fee for prospecting Jicence. The assessee claimed the I/20th part of the money paid for the lease as well as the fee paid for the prospecting licence as revenue expen- diture for purposes of income tax. The Tribunal allowed the money paid for the mica scrap lying on the surface as revenue expenditure, but dis- .allowed. the other claims. The High Court also, on reference, held agz.i"'t the assessee (appellant).

Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : The e

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 10(2)(xv)

All 90 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →