Mining Industries v. CIT

228 ITR 183High Court#23895 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 2(14)Section 43B Section 135 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(11)Section 250

Judgments citing Mining Industries v. CIT

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

…f mining lease or sub lease thereof does not depend upon the operations, therefore claim of the appellant is 16 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. meritless, thus rejected. This our view finds fortified in ‘Salgaonkar Mining Industries Vs CIT’. [1997, 228 ITR 183(Bom)]. The solitary ground thus stands partly allowed. 40. In result, the appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in a forestated terms. “ 8.Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and the ratio of the judicial decisions dealt in the above issue and also follow the judicial precedence. Accordingly, we concurred with the f…

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)

…expenditure incurred towards acquisition of mining lease or sub lease thereof does not depend upon the operations, therefore claim of the appellant is meritless, thus rejected. This our view finds fortified in ‘Salgaonkar Mining Industries Vs CIT’. [1997, 228 ITR 183(Bom)]. The solitary ground thus stands partly allowed. 40. In result, the appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned hereinbefore. -S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt:…

KHODAY ESHWARSA & SONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III

Section 263

…not be considered as either revenue income or capital gains. Reliance was placed on the following judgments : i) CIT v. Hiralal Manilal Mody [131 ITR 421] (Guj) ii) CIT v. Vishaka Marketing Ltd [(1987) 164 ITR 664] iii) Salgaonkar Mining Industries v. CIT [228 ITR 183] iv) CIT v. Dhanraj Dugar [137 ITR 350] (Cal) v) CIT v. Mrs. Grace Collis & Others [248 ITR 323] (SC) vi) S. Zoraster & Co. V. CIT [322 ITR 35] (Raj) vii ) Travancore Rubber & Tea & Co. Ltd v. CIT [243 ITR 158] (SC) viii) CIT v. D. P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd [273 ITR 1] (SC) ix) Syndicate Bank Ltd v. ACIT [(1985) 155 ITR 68] Further according…