Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

239 ITR 775Supreme Court of India1999#419 most cited

What is Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

215

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mysore Minerals Ltd v CIT · 239 ITR 775 · Section 32 · Section 54 · Section 22 · definition of owner · beneficial ownership · depreciation claim · registration of sale deed not mandatory · real owner · capital gains exemption · Income from House Property

Also reported as

106 Taxmann 166

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 32Section 148Section 53ASection 54FSection 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 53asection 53section 32(1)put to usesection 32intangible assetscapital expenditurerevenue expenditurelong term capital gainsection 26transferreasonable cause

Judgments citing Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…has dealt with the matter as matter of fact. Hence, the said decision stands distinguished. 16.24 The reliance placed in para 4.16 of the order under section 250 of the Act on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Limited v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) is not at all applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as there has been no handing over of possession to the purchaser. Without prejudice, the observation that the registration of the land is a mere formality is too farfetched in as much as even the entire consideration has not been received. Thus, to say that the re…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…has dealt with the matter as matter of fact. Hence, the said decision stands distinguished. 16.24 The reliance placed in para 4.16 of the order under section 250 of the Act on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Limited v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) is not at all applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as there has been no handing over of possession to the purchaser. Without prejudice, the observation that the registration of the land is a mere formality is too farfetched in as much as even the entire consideration has not been received. Thus, to say that the re…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…has dealt with the matter as matter of fact. Hence, the said decision stands distinguished. 16.24 The reliance placed in para 4.16 of the order under section 250 of the Act on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Limited v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) is not at all applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as there has been no handing over of possession to the purchaser. Without prejudice, the observation that the registration of the land is a mere formality is too farfetched in as much as even the entire consideration has not been received. Thus, to say that the re…

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

…ang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 10 of 55 6.19 Further, Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) also failed to appreciate the law of the land in as much as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC). In this decision the Court has categorically held that “The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same…

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

…ang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 10 of 55 6.19 Further, Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) also failed to appreciate the law of the land in as much as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC). In this decision the Court has categorically held that “The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same…

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

…ang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 10 of 55 6.19 Further, Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) also failed to appreciate the law of the land in as much as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC). In this decision the Court has categorically held that “The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same…

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

…ang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 10 of 55 6.19 Further, Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) also failed to appreciate the law of the land in as much as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC). In this decision the Court has categorically held that “The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same…

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

…ang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 10 of 55 6.19 Further, Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) also failed to appreciate the law of the land in as much as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC). In this decision the Court has categorically held that “The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same…

Sambhav Energy Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…remained suspended and could not be operated in the year in question. The unit resumed production in the subsequent assessment year i.e., in July, 1978. 4. The apex court while interpreting Section 32 of the Act, has held in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775, that Section 32 confers a benefit on the assessee. The provision should be so interpreted and the words used therein should be assigned such meaning as would enable the assessee to secure the benefit intended to be given by the Legislature to the assessee. It is also settled that where there are two possible interpretations of a taxing provision…

Sambhav Energy Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…remained suspended and could not be operated in the year in question. The unit resumed production in the subsequent assessment year i.e., in July, 1978. 4. The apex court while interpreting Section 32 of the Act, has held in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775, that Section 32 confers a benefit on the assessee. The provision should be so interpreted and the words used therein should be assigned such meaning as would enable the assessee to secure the benefit intended to be given by the Legislature to the assessee. It is also settled that where there are two possible interpretations of a taxing provision…

Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1292/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of, Inter Alia, The Construction & Development Of Integrated Townships. The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 12Th December 2011 At A Total Income Of Rs 42,18,260. However, As A Result Of Search Operations Having Been Carried Out By The Income Tax Department On The Assessee & Its Associated Persons & Group Enterprises, The Assessee Was Called Upon To File A Fresh Return Under Section 153A, Which Was

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ITA No.: 1292/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 15 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI „A‟ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar, Vice President and, Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member] ITA No.: 1292/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2009-10 Luxora Infrastructure Pvt Ltd …………………….. Appellant 1207, 12th floor, A Wing , 02 Commercial Building 23-24, Minerva Industrial Estate, Off LBS Road Mulund (W), Mumbai 400 080 [PAN: AABCL2854K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai ………………….Respondent Appearances: K P Dewani, for the appellant Shailja Rai, for the respondent Date of concluding the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/905/2010HC Delhi17 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 260ASection 32

…(A) relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals vs. Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:27.10.2022 16:30:27 Signature Not Verified ITA 905/2010 and ITA 130/2013 Page 5 of 11 Commissioner of Income Tax, [1999] 239 ITR 775 and Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, [2001] 247 ITR 267 concluded that the Assessee had become the owner of the IP rights by virtue of the said agreement dated 8th August, 2000 and the absence of the registration of the trademarks and other IP rights in the name of the Assessee would not affect its rights to clai…

Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

ITA 890/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 132Section 14ASection 250Section 28

…nd explanation to Sec. 48. We have gone through the following citations quoted by the assessee in his favour I. Charanbir Singh Jolly vs ITO (2006)5 SOT 89 (Mum) II. Shrimati Lata G.Rohra vs DCIT 9(2008) 21 SOT 541 (Mum) III. Mysore Minerals Ltd Vs CIT (1994) 239 ITR 775(S.C) The judgements relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the case. 11. Assessees emphasis on base year i.e., FY 2006-07 and cost of acquisition i.e. 9 Cr. are relevant for the purposes of determination of the nature of the asset i.e. 7 ITA No. 890/Mum/2020-Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya whether a…

M/S Well Wisher Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1912/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…business of the company. This fact is not in dispute at all. We find that the car is forming part of fixed assets of the assessee company. Hence by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd vs CIT reported in 239 ITR 775(SC), we hold that the assessee company 9 M/s. Well Wisher Construction P. Ltd., would be entitled for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act . We direct the ld. AO to allow depreciation thereon to the assessee company. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 6. The next ground to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the…

Mangilal Lakahji Chowdhary, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2791/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 269USection 41(1)Section 53A

…1 has held that owner is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right and the requirement of registration of sale deed in the context of section 22 is not warranted. Again the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v.CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 / 106 Taxman 166 has held that anyone in possession of property in his own right exercising such dominion over the property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having the right to use and occupy the property in his own right, would be the owner of the building for the purpose of section 32(1) though a formal deed of title may not…

Jet Freight Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 683/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. We Find That The Order Is Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) During The Covid Pandemic Period & Accordingly, In View Of The Relaxation Granted By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay Of 85 Days In Filing Of Appeal By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…. Pursuant to entering the agreement the assessee became the beneficial owner of the said property. In this regard, we have no hesitation in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 239 ITR 775 wherein it was held that when assessee was in possession of the property exercising and having right to use and occupy property he would be construed as the owner of the building though a formal deed of title could not have been executed and registered by taking possession of the property and making part payment thereon. It was held by the Hon’bl…

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6575/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & M/s. Suchetan Commercial Vs. Income Tax Officer – 2(3)(2) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Room No.581A, Aaykar Bhavan Mafatlal House M.K.Road, Ground Floor Churchgate – 400 021 H T Parekh Marg Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AAACS8070M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar Revenue by Shri Samuel Pitta Date of Hearing 15/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement 07/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals in ITA No.6574/Mum/2019 & 6575/Mum/2019 f…

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6574/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & M/s. Suchetan Commercial Vs. Income Tax Officer – 2(3)(2) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Room No.581A, Aaykar Bhavan Mafatlal House M.K.Road, Ground Floor Churchgate – 400 021 H T Parekh Marg Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AAACS8070M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar Revenue by Shri Samuel Pitta Date of Hearing 15/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement 07/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals in ITA No.6574/Mum/2019 & 6575/Mum/2019 f…

DCIT Circle- 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1195/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1195/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ....Appellant Circle–3(3)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Reliance Corporate I.T. Park Ltd. Building no.4/5, TTC Industrial Area …………….Respondent Thane–Belapur Road, Rabale Navi Mumbai 400 701 PAN – AABCD7169H Cross Objection no.140/Mum./2021 (Arising out of ITA No.1195/Mum./2020) (Assessment Year : 2012–13) M/s. Reliance Corporate I.T. Park Ltd. ....Cross Objector Building no.4/5, TTC Industrial Area…

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 273/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ny of the authorities below, therefore, we can safely presume that the assessee is the beneficial owner of the assets. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore minerals Ltd. vs CIT reported in 239 ITR 775 wherein it was held as under: "13. An overall view of the abovesaid authorities show that the very concept of depreciation suggests that the tax benefit on account of depreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the capital asset, is utilizing the capital asset and thereby loosing gradually investment caused by wear and tear, and…