Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 39Supreme Court of India1991#3457 most cited

What is Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred to remove a restriction, obstruction, or disability preventing the carrying on of an existing business is revenue expenditure, provided no capital asset is acquired. The nature of the lease, purpose of expenditure, and its relation to profitable business operations are key considerations in mining cases.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT · SC · 1991 · section 35E · section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · mining business · removal of obstruction · existing business · capital asset

Also reported as

53 Taxmann 279

Sections most often in play

Section 35ESection 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 35esection 24asection 269uasection 75section 52section 32(1)(ii)interest under section 201(1a)commercial rightssection 192enduring benefitput to usesection 32(1)

Judgments citing Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 457/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…ot possible irrespective of the fact whether depillaring had been done or not, was a finding of fact. In view of that finding, the High Court was justified in holding that the expenditure in dispute was a revenue expenditure.” (ii) Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. Vs CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC,) wherein it has been held as follows: “In considering the cases of mining business the nature of the lease, the purpose for which expenditure is made, its relation to the carrying on of the business in a profitable manner should be considered. In the instant case, existence of railway station, yard aftd buildings on the surface of the demised…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…aken as per the gazette and with this payment, there is change of user. No asset is earned. This is as authorized by the Govt. In support of his proposition, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC). In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held that where the assessee has an existing right to carry on a business, any expenditure made by it during the course of business for the purpose of removal of any restriction or M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. obstruction or disability would be on revenue account, provided the expenditu…

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…aken as per the gazette and with this payment, there is change of user. No asset is earned. This is as authorized by the Govt. In support of his proposition, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC). In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held that where the assessee has an existing right to carry on a business, any expenditure made by it during the course of business for the purpose of removal of any restriction or M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. obstruction or disability would be on revenue account, provided the expenditu…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…aken as per the gazette and with this payment, there is change of user. No asset is earned. This is as authorized by the Govt. In support of his proposition, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC). In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held that where the assessee has an existing right to carry on a business, any expenditure made by it during the course of business for the purpose of removal of any restriction or M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. obstruction or disability would be on revenue account, provided the expenditu…

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4, NOW CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1657/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…of disadvantage or obstacle. The said expenditure did not give any benefit to your appellant but it simply removed the disadvantage which was there. 11.26 Your appellant relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd v CIT 187 ITR 39 and CIT V Ashok LeyLand , Ltd. 8 ITR 549. The Learned assessing officer while making the addition has not dealt with these decisions." 52. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find merit in the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the expenses incurred for diverting the course…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1471/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…of disadvantage or obstacle. The said expenditure did not give any benefit to your appellant but it simply removed the disadvantage which was there. 11.26 Your appellant relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd v CIT 187 ITR 39 and CIT V Ashok LeyLand , Ltd. 8 ITR 549. The Learned assessing officer while making the addition has not dealt with these decisions." 52. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find merit in the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the expenses incurred for diverting the course…

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1747/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…of disadvantage or obstacle. The said expenditure did not give any benefit to your appellant but it simply removed the disadvantage which was there. 11.26 Your appellant relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd v CIT 187 ITR 39 and CIT V Ashok LeyLand , Ltd. 8 ITR 549. The Learned assessing officer while making the addition has not dealt with these decisions." 52. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find merit in the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the expenses incurred for diverting the course…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…for earning such excavation charge needs to deducted from the receipts. Purchase of land is one such expense which need to be deducted. 21.2 Reference in also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs CIT [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC). In this case the Court held as under: “In our opinion where the assessee has an existing right to carry on a business, any expenditure made by it during the course of business for the purpose of removal of any restriction or obstruction or disability would be on revenue account, provided the expenditure does not acquire any capital asset. P…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…for earning such excavation charge needs to deducted from the receipts. Purchase of land is one such expense which need to be deducted. 21.2 Reference in also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs CIT [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC). In this case the Court held as under: “In our opinion where the assessee has an existing right to carry on a business, any expenditure made by it during the course of business for the purpose of removal of any restriction or obstruction or disability would be on revenue account, provided the expenditure does not acquire any capital asset. P…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2137/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…for earning such excavation charge needs to deducted from the receipts. Purchase of land is one such expense which need to be deducted. 21.2 Reference in also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs CIT [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC). In this case the Court held as under: “In our opinion where the assessee has an existing right to carry on a business, any expenditure made by it during the course of business for the purpose of removal of any restriction or obstruction or disability would be on revenue account, provided the expenditure does not acquire any capital asset. P…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2136/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…for earning such excavation charge needs to deducted from the receipts. Purchase of land is one such expense which need to be deducted. 21.2 Reference in also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs CIT [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC). In this case the Court held as under: “In our opinion where the assessee has an existing right to carry on a business, any expenditure made by it during the course of business for the purpose of removal of any restriction or obstruction or disability would be on revenue account, provided the expenditure does not acquire any capital asset. P…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…for earning such excavation charge needs to deducted from the receipts. Purchase of land is one such expense which need to be deducted. 21.2 Reference in also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs CIT [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC). In this case the Court held as under: “In our opinion where the assessee has an existing right to carry on a business, any expenditure made by it during the course of business for the purpose of removal of any restriction or obstruction or disability would be on revenue account, provided the expenditure does not acquire any capital asset. P…

MANGLAM ARTS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JPR/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 250

…ence, the reasons stated by him are neither correct nor for these reasons, the expenditure can be treated as capital expenditure. In support of his contention, the ld. A/R placed reliance on the following case laws :- (1) Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. Vs. CIT(1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC) (2) Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) (3) Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC) (4) CIT Vs. O.P.N. Arunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620 (Madras) (HC) While concluding, the ld. A/R submitted that from the above decisions it is evident that when the litigation expenditure is incurred to protect the busine…

SKE & C- KCT JOINT VENTURE ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 4204/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5451/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit 85A, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle 24(2) Rishyamook Building, New Delhi. Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadas9266L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4202 To 4204/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit Thapar House, Central Wing, Vs. Circle 23(2) 3Rd Floor, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…se of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ld. vs. CIT 91965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) : judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and judgment in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 89 CTR (SC) 176 : (1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC). He further observed that the assessee had to incur expenditure on the construction of bye-pass road and temporary bridge on river Yamuna for the purposes of carrying on its business because without incurring this expenditure it could not have transported the relevant machinery to the work site for the execution of the project. The assessee h…

SKE & C- KCT JOINT VENTURE ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 4203/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5451/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit 85A, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle 24(2) Rishyamook Building, New Delhi. Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadas9266L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4202 To 4204/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit Thapar House, Central Wing, Vs. Circle 23(2) 3Rd Floor, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…se of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ld. vs. CIT 91965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) : judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and judgment in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 89 CTR (SC) 176 : (1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC). He further observed that the assessee had to incur expenditure on the construction of bye-pass road and temporary bridge on river Yamuna for the purposes of carrying on its business because without incurring this expenditure it could not have transported the relevant machinery to the work site for the execution of the project. The assessee h…

SKE & C- KCT JOINT VENTURE ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 4202/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5451/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit 85A, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle 24(2) Rishyamook Building, New Delhi. Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadas9266L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4202 To 4204/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit Thapar House, Central Wing, Vs. Circle 23(2) 3Rd Floor, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…se of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ld. vs. CIT 91965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) : judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and judgment in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 89 CTR (SC) 176 : (1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC). He further observed that the assessee had to incur expenditure on the construction of bye-pass road and temporary bridge on river Yamuna for the purposes of carrying on its business because without incurring this expenditure it could not have transported the relevant machinery to the work site for the execution of the project. The assessee h…

SKE & C- KCT JOINT VENTURE ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 5451/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5451/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit 85A, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle 24(2) Rishyamook Building, New Delhi. Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadas9266L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4202 To 4204/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit Thapar House, Central Wing, Vs. Circle 23(2) 3Rd Floor, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…se of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ld. vs. CIT 91965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) : judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and judgment in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 89 CTR (SC) 176 : (1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC). He further observed that the assessee had to incur expenditure on the construction of bye-pass road and temporary bridge on river Yamuna for the purposes of carrying on its business because without incurring this expenditure it could not have transported the relevant machinery to the work site for the execution of the project. The assessee h…

DY.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION PVT. LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/CTK/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiadcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue Versus M/S Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Omc House, Post Box No.34, Bhubaneswar-01 Pan No.Aaaco 3324 L …………….. Assessee Shri Siddharth Ranjan, Ca For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.08.2019 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0472/17-18 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. There Are Two Issues Raised In This Appeal By The Revenue. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Cit-Dr That Grounds No.2 & 3 Are Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Net Present Value(Npv) Paid Towards Acquisition Of Forest Land & Compensatory Afforestation. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Had Treated The Same As Revenue Expenditure. The Ao Held That The Expenditure Are Liable

…ch of the Tribunal in the case of Rungta Mines Ltd., reported in [2015] 62 taxmann.com 73 (Kolkata-Trib), wherein in para 4.1 the Tribunal has applied the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd., reported in [1991] 187 ITR 39, which reads as under :- 4.1 We have carefully perused the records. We find that the Tribunal in the above decision has elaborately considered the issue. The Tribunal had found that the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. (supra) applied to the case of the assessee and the expenditure cannot be treated as capital…

ACIT, CIRLCE- 18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NTPC TAMILNADU ENERGY COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5490/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2022AY 2013-14
Section 37Section 37(1)

…e decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 125ITR 293 (SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in cases of Airport Authority of India vs. CIT - 2012-TIOL-09-HC-DEL-IT-LB and Bikaner Gypsusms Ltd. vs. CIT - 187 ITR 39, which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the roads were constructed around the factory with an amount incurred by the assessee existing on the land owned by Government of UP, the assessee did not acquire any asset of an enduring nature. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , KOLKATA -1 vs. M/S. RUNGTA SONS PVT LTD

In the result, the substantial

ITAT/295/2017HC Calcutta10 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260A

…penditure? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has erred in law in not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC) and in the case of R.R.B. Seth Moolchand Sugam Chand vs. CIT reported in [1972] 86 ITR 647 (SC)?” We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Subash Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. It is not disputed before us that identical substantial questions of law were considered by thi…

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 39) — Cited in 34 Judgments | BharatTax