(i) CIT v. Malayalam Plantation Ltd.

220 ITR 29High Court1996#5466 most cited

What is (i) CIT v. Malayalam Plantation Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred for the purpose of reclamation of mining land, to fulfill statutory obligations for phased restoration, is allowable as business expenditure.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gogte Minerals · 1996 · 220 ITR 29 · business expenditure · mining land reclamation · Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act · 1957 · Mineral Conservation & Development Rules · 1988 · pit filling expenses · statutory obligation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 274Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)domestic companyfull value of consideration

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Malayalam Plantation Ltd.

Joint.Commissioner of Income Tax Range -I, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/BIL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…DR placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. 80. Per contra, the Ld. AR apart from supporting the order of CIT(A) also relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantation Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Gogte Minerals (1996) 220 ITR 29 (Kar) (iii) Smt. K. SuryakumariVenu Vs. ACIT (2016) 70 taxmann.com 310 81. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of „tree plantation expenses‟ and „others‟ to be capital in nature, whereas the CIT(A) relying on the orders of…