What is Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT authority for?

Recurring payments made for the use of an asset are treated as revenue expenditure, as they are not payments for the acquisition of the asset itself.

How many judgments cite Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT (59 ITR 718), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 35ABB, Section 143(2), Section 2(14), Section 32.

Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT (59 ITR 718)

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

…M/s Sova Vs PCIT ITA No. 024/PAN/2024 AY: 2018-19 217 (SC)], ‘A.R. Krishnamurthy Vs CIT’ [1989, 43 Taxman 30 (SC)], ‘Rajendra Mining Syndicate v. CIT’ [1961, 43 ITR 460 (AP)], ‘Aditya Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. CIT’ (supra) and ‘Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT’ [1966, 59 ITR 718 (SC)] held the sum paid in the form of ‘stamp duty’ for renewal of mining lease as ‘capital in nature’ thus eligible for depreciation as intangible assets u/s 32 of the Act and ‘registration fees’ as revenue in nature thus deductible u/s 37(1) of the Act. Without contesting but placing reliance thereon (supra), the Ld. Sayal contended that, to the…

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

…rpose have reaffirmed the well settled principle that, any expenditure incurred in acquiring mining-lease right over land to win minerals is by very nature & character capital and not revenue. Reiterating the ratio laid in ‘Gotan Lime Syndicate Vs CIT’ [1966, 59 ITR 718) their Hon’ble Lordships have also categorically held that, the payment does not lose its character as capital payment if the sum was determined to pay was capital in nature. Thus, the nature of sum continues to be character of sum payable/paid irrespective of mode and frequency of payment. 22. In view of aforestated discussion and respectfully…

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 PAN: AAACB5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee by: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11/02/2…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…nnot be equated to price paid for acquisition of any asset and thus, the fees paid will be treated as revenue expenditure [refer Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1973] 3 SCC 143, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 3 Taxman 69 (SC), Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT 59 ITR 718 (SC)]. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the annual variable licence fee paid by the assessee with reference to adjusted gross revenue for the year is clearly allowable revenue expenditure. Without prejudice- full amortization under section 35ABB in same year 28. Strictly without prejudice to the aforesaid and in the alternative, if one is to assume t…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…nnot be equated to price paid for acquisition of any asset and thus, the fees paid will be treated as revenue expenditure [refer Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1973] 3 SCC 143, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 3 Taxman 69 (SC), Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT 59 ITR 718 (SC)]. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the annual variable licence fee paid by the assessee with reference to adjusted gross revenue for the year is clearly allowable revenue expenditure. Without prejudice- full amortization under section 35ABB in same year 28. Strictly without prejudice to the aforesaid and in the alternative, if one is to assume t…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4960/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…nnot be equated to price paid for acquisition of any asset and thus, the fees paid will be treated as revenue expenditure [refer Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1973] 3 SCC 143, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 3 Taxman 69 (SC), Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT 59 ITR 718 (SC)]. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the annual variable licence fee paid by the assessee with reference to adjusted gross revenue for the year is clearly allowable revenue expenditure. Without prejudice- full amortization under section 35ABB in same year 28. Strictly without prejudice to the aforesaid and in the alternative, if one is to assume t…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4868/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…nnot be equated to price paid for acquisition of any asset and thus, the fees paid will be treated as revenue expenditure [refer Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1973] 3 SCC 143, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 3 Taxman 69 (SC), Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT 59 ITR 718 (SC)]. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the annual variable licence fee paid by the assessee with reference to adjusted gross revenue for the year is clearly allowable revenue expenditure. Without prejudice- full amortization under section 35ABB in same year 28. Strictly without prejudice to the aforesaid and in the alternative, if one is to assume t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ARCHEAN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1615/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1615/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1589/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Archean Industries Private Ltd. बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) #2, North Crescent Road, / Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7344-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr.R.Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri M. Karthikeyan (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass (Ca) - Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Dr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT &For Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass (CA) - Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…act but the quantum of seigniorage charges was directly proportional to the weight / volume of stone extracted and the charges were recurring payments. The Ld. CIT (A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate vs CIT (59 ITR 718) holding that such expenditure would be revenue in nature. Therefore, the addition was deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our Adjudication on this issue 9. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee has acquired license from state governments which is used in carrying out trading operations. The stone are…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI vs. ARCHEAN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, R.A. PURAM, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1589/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1615/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1589/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Archean Industries Private Ltd. बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) #2, North Crescent Road, / Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7344-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr.R.Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri M. Karthikeyan (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass (Ca) - Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Dr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT &For Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass (CA) - Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…act but the quantum of seigniorage charges was directly proportional to the weight / volume of stone extracted and the charges were recurring payments. The Ld. CIT (A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate vs CIT (59 ITR 718) holding that such expenditure would be revenue in nature. Therefore, the addition was deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our Adjudication on this issue 9. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee has acquired license from state governments which is used in carrying out trading operations. The stone are…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. THE HUTTI GOLD MINES COMPANY LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1339/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 37(1)

…the taxable income. The above decision of the High Court has recently been reversed by Page 4 of 6 the Supreme Court. A gist of the above decision has appeared in short notes of current cases in (1965) 58 ITR 29 (SC) of short notes [since reported at (1966) 59 ITR 718 (SC) : TC 17R.197]. The Supreme Court has held that the royalty payment including the dead rent had relation only to the lime deposits collected by the lessee and would, therefore, be revenue expenditure. According to the Supreme Court, the royalty paid in that case was not a direct payment for securing an enduring advantage; it had relation to th…