40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT

239 ITR 817Supreme Court of India1999#6934 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2021.

Issues it is cited on

section 35absection 35abbtest of enduring benefitsection 35aresulting companypptdemergerjdaenduring benefitput to usesection 35amalgamation

Judgments citing 40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254

…with the extraction of the minerals from the land. The relevant extract of the judgment in case of Enterprising Enterprises Vs. DCIT reported in 268 ITR 95 reads as under: In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Aditya Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817, on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the quarry lease rent paid to the Government for acquiring the right to excavate the granite on lease was a capital expenditure. 13.9 The term mining lease includes leases of premises where mining takes place, it is not actually necessary for mining to ta…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…sessment for the AY 2003-04 the AO however disallowed the assessee’s amortization claim holding it to be capital in nature and in support of this conclusion, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (239 ITR 817). The AO’s order was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) but on further appeal the ‘B’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.348/Kol/2007 dated 11.04.2008 upheld the assessee’s claim. In arriving at its decision the Tribunal had considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs HMT Ltd (203 ITR 803) which in turn was based on the…

BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…sessment for the AY 2003-04 the AO however disallowed the assessee’s amortization claim holding it to be capital in nature and in support of this conclusion, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (239 ITR 817). The AO’s order was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) but on further appeal the ‘B’ Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.348/Kol/2007 dated 11.04.2008 upheld the assessee’s claim. In arriving at its decision the Tribunal had considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs HMT Ltd (203 ITR 803) which in turn was based on the…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 366/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…facts, as it appears to us, this case is on a par with Pingle Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) and, accordingly, the civil appeals must fail and are dismissed.” In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (239 ITR 817) the impugned payment made for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the co- ordinate bench decision of Tribunal in the case of P.Abubakar (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case M/s.Ramgad Minerals & Minings Pvt. L…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 365/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…facts, as it appears to us, this case is on a par with Pingle Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) and, accordingly, the civil appeals must fail and are dismissed.” In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (239 ITR 817) the impugned payment made for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the co- ordinate bench decision of Tribunal in the case of P.Abubakar (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case M/s.Ramgad Minerals & Minings Pvt. L…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 364/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…facts, as it appears to us, this case is on a par with Pingle Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) and, accordingly, the civil appeals must fail and are dismissed.” In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (239 ITR 817) the impugned payment made for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the co- ordinate bench decision of Tribunal in the case of P.Abubakar (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case M/s.Ramgad Minerals & Minings Pvt. L…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 363/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…facts, as it appears to us, this case is on a par with Pingle Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) and, accordingly, the civil appeals must fail and are dismissed.” In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (239 ITR 817) the impugned payment made for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the co- ordinate bench decision of Tribunal in the case of P.Abubakar (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case M/s.Ramgad Minerals & Minings Pvt. L…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD

ITA/1328/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…e Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR. 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd vs. CIT [1960] 40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd, vs. 'CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rejit was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure, while the latter would be capital expenditure. 20. This brings us to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case…

CIT vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LIMITED

ITA/996/2011HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…e Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR. 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd vs. CIT [1960] 40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd, vs. 'CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rejit was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure, while the latter would be capital expenditure. 20. This brings us to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARTI TELENET LTD

ITA/1333/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…e Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR. 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd vs. CIT [1960] 40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd, vs. 'CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rejit was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure, while the latter would be capital expenditure. 20. This brings us to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case…

CIT vs. BHARTIHEXACOM LTD

ITA/114/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…e Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR. 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd vs. CIT [1960] 40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd, vs. 'CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rejit was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure, while the latter would be capital expenditure. 20. This brings us to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case…

CIT vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD

ITA/177/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…e Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR. 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd vs. CIT [1960] 40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd, vs. 'CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rejit was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure, while the latter would be capital expenditure. 20. This brings us to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD

ITA - 1328 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…e Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR. 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd vs. CIT [1960] 40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd, vs. 'CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rejit was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure, while the latter would be capital expenditure. 20. This brings us to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case…

CIT vs. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD

ITA - 1679 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…e Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR. 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd vs. CIT [1960] 40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd, vs. 'CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rejit was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure, while the latter would be capital expenditure. 20. This brings us to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD

ITA - 1336 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…me Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rent was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure, while the latter would be capital expenditure. 20. This brings us to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in…

CIT vs. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD

ITA - 1680 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…e Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR. 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd vs. CIT [1960] 40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd, vs. 'CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rejit was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure, while the latter would be capital expenditure. 20. This brings us to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case…

40 TTR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT (239 ITR 817) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax