PINGLE INDUSTRIES LTD., SECUNDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

CIVIL APPEAL No. 190/1955Supreme Court[1960] 3 S.C.R. 68126 April 1960Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH33 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pingle Industries Ltd., obtained exclusive rights to extract Shahabad flag stones from quarries for 12 years under a 'quolnama' from a jagirdar. The consideration was an annual payment of Rs. 28,000, with an initial security deposit of Rs. 96,000 and the balance of Rs. 20,000 payable in monthly installments. The assessee also had a similar contract with the Government for five years, requiring an annual payment of Rs. 9,000. The assessee claimed these payments as business expenditure under Section 12(2)(xv) of the Hyderabad Income Tax Act (equivalent to Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act). The Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that these expenditures were capital in nature and not allowable. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was divided, with the Accountant Member considering the payments as royalties and dead rent, while the President viewed them as payments for purchasing stock-in-trade.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

By a majority of 2:1 (Justices Kapur and Hidayatullah dissenting from Justice S.K. Das), the Supreme Court held that the payments made by the assessee under the 'quolnama' were not allowable as business expenditure. The majority reasoned that the assessee acquired a right to win stones through a long-term lease, which conveyed a part of the land. The stones in situ were considered a capital asset, which the assessee converted into stock-in-trade after extraction. The payments, though periodic, were deemed to be a lump sum payment in installments for acquiring a capital asset of enduring benefit to the trade, and not rent or royalty. Therefore, the outgoings were on capital account. Justice S.K. Das, in his dissenting opinion, held that the transaction was a sale of raw materials coupled with a license to remove them, with the payments being the purchase price, and thus deductible as business expenditure. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the payments made by the assessee under the 'quolnama' and the Government contract for the right to extract stones from quarries constitute revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, under Section 12(2)(xv) of the Hyderabad Income Tax Act (corresponding to Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the payments were for procuring raw materials (stones) for its business of selling flag stones, not for acquiring an enduring asset. They contended that the transaction was essentially a sale of raw materials coupled with a license to remove them, and the payments were the purchase price, thus deductible as business expenditure. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the 'quolnama' granted the assessee a long-term lease, conveying a part of the land, and the stones in situ were a capital asset. The payments, despite being periodic, were in reality a lump sum for acquiring this capital asset of enduring benefit to the trade, making them capital expenditure and not deductible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12(2)(xv),Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

--' .. 3 S.C.R. SUPREl\iE COURT.REPORTS 681 PING LE INDUSTRIES LTD., SECUNDERABAD 1960 v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD· (S. K. DAs, ]. L. KAPUR and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.)

Income Tax-Business Expenditure-Right to extract stou~s fmm quarries-Character of expenditure-Test, whether revenue or capital in nature-Hyderabad Income Tax Act (Hyderabad VIII oj 1357 F), s. l2(2)(xv)-lndian Income Tax Act, s. 10(2)(xv).

Under a quolnama the assessec company was granted exclu- sive rights in the nature of a monopoly to extract Shahabad Flag Stones without limit to quantity or measurement from quarries situated in six villages for a period of 12 years on annual pay- ment of Rs. 28,000 but not to manufacture cement.

The stones had to be extracted methodically and skilfully before they could be dressed and sold. The assessee company paid an initial sum of Rs. 96,000 as security and the balance of Rs, 20,000 was payable each year in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,666-10-8 each. The payments were to be made even if no stones were extracted or could not be extracted.

The question was whether the amount> paid were allowable as business expenditure under s. 12(2)(xv) of

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 →