Mining Syndicate v. CIT

43 ITR 460High Court1991#20845 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 32 Section 37(1)Section 43B Section 135 Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

intangible assets section 32 revenue expenditure capital expenditure section 37(1)section 143(2)transfer prescribed person section 143(3)india nfac

Judgments citing Mining Syndicate v. CIT

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

…CIT’ [1955, 27 ITR 341 (Pat)], ‘R.K. Palshikar (HUF) Vs CIT’ [1988, 56 CCH ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 20 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…

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

…sfer, in consequence sum arising on such of right in rem chargeable to gain tax. 20. In context of renewal giving rise to capital asset, we note that, considering former judicial precedents their Hon’ble lordships in ‘Rajendra Mining Syndicate Vs CIT’ [1961, 43 ITR 460 (AP)] have also echoed that, renewal of mining-lease endows enduring benefit for a term and confers various rights hence is not a commodity but an asset capable of generating commodity to be sold in mining business. 21. A similar ratio also laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the landmark case of ‘Aditya Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs CIT’ [1999, 67 CC…

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)

…sfer, in consequence sum arising on such of right in rem chargeable to gain tax. 20. In context of renewal giving rise to capital asset, we note that, considering former judicial precedents their Hon’ble lordships in ‘Rajendra Mining Syndicate Vs CIT’ [1961, 43 ITR 460 (AP)] have also echoed that, renewal of mining-lease endows enduring benefit for a term and confers various rights hence is not a commodity but an asset capable of generating commodity to be sold in mining business. ITAT-Panaji Page 24 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 21. A similar ratio also laid do…

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

…(1981) 127 ITR 810 (Ker). iv) CIT Vs. A. Venkataraman (1982) 137 ITR 846 (Mad). v) Damodar G. Nagolia Vs. CIT (2007) 12 SOT 600 (Mum). vi) CIT Vs. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussain Merchant (2002) 144 Taxmann 720 (Bom). vii) Rajendra Mining Syndicate Vs. CIT (1991) 43 ITR 460 (AP). viii) CIT Vs. Jagadish Sugar Mills (1974) Tax LR 526 (All.) ix) CIT Vs. MD Manohar Rao (1985) 155 ITR 696 (AP). x) Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd (1982) 138 ITR 195 (Del). xi) B.N. Pinto Vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 306 (Kar). xii) CIT Vs. C.V. Soundararajan (1984) 150 ITR 80 (Mad). xiii) CIT Vs. Abrar Ali (2001) 247 ITR 312 (Bom). xiv) Mala Kumar Vs. As…