Pingle Industries v. CIT

40 ITR 67Supreme Court of India1960#9783 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 253(1)Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)

Judgments citing Pingle Industries 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

…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: 2018-19 M/s Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. PAN: AACFS8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee by: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 05/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10/03/2026 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal is filed u/s 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act…

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…the AO ignoring the binding decisions of Supreme Court and various High Courts as under: P a g e 37 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 i) Assam Bengal Cement Co.Ltd vs CIT, 27 ITRT 34 (SC) ii) Bharat Colleries Ltd vs CIT, 40 ITR 67 (SC) iii) Pingle Industries Ltd vs CIT, 40 ITR 67 (SC) iv) KTMTM Abdul Kayoom vs CIT, 44 ITR 689 (SC) 48. Facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer noticed that in the profit and loss and account for the year ending 31.3.2015, the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.5,31,69,709/- towards “compensatory afforestation charges”. However, he observ…

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…the AO ignoring the binding decisions of Supreme Court and various High Courts as under: P a g e 37 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 i) Assam Bengal Cement Co.Ltd vs CIT, 27 ITRT 34 (SC) ii) Bharat Colleries Ltd vs CIT, 40 ITR 67 (SC) iii) Pingle Industries Ltd vs CIT, 40 ITR 67 (SC) iv) KTMTM Abdul Kayoom vs CIT, 44 ITR 689 (SC) 48. Facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer noticed that in the profit and loss and account for the year ending 31.3.2015, the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.5,31,69,709/- towards “compensatory afforestation charges”. However, he observ…

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254

…nd for setting up power receipt station in order to further distribution of power to customers and not for the purpose of extraction of the minerals. It is also pertinent to note that Hon’ble SC in its judgment in the case of Pingle Industries Ltd reported in 40 ITR 67 held that: “A large number of decisions were cited before us, but ho infallible criterion of universal application emerges therefrom and each case must turn on its own facts, though the decisions are useful as illustrations and as affording indication of the kind of considerations which may relevantly be borne in mind in approaching the problem. I…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/336/2014HC Karnataka16 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260Section 40

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.336 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CO. LTD., JUBLIEE BUILDING NO.45, MUSEUM ROAD BANGALORE-560038 PAN: AAACT90778B. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. M. LAVA, ADV…

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)

…lead to the conclusion that yearly payments made under the mining lease have relation to the acquisition of an enduring advantage. The Supreme Court has also distinguished the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate from the case of Pingle Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 40 ITR 67 (SC) : TC 16R.935 and Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT 44 ITR 69 (SC) : TC 16R.1006. 2. In the light of the above decision, the instructions issued in the Board's Circular referred to above may now be treated as withdrawn. Under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, royalty is payable in respect of any mineral removed by the lessee from the leased area. The amou…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 366/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…uiring mining rights from the Government of Karnataka. This payment was made for acquiring right to excavate the minerals and not for acquiring minerals. The issue before their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pingle Industries vs. CIT (1966)(40 ITR 67)(SC) was whether consideration paid for acquiring right to extract stones by taking on lease for a period of 12 years lands from jagirdar can be allowed as revenue expenditure. Their Lordships, by a majority judgment held that the assessee had acquired by his long- term lease, right to win stones. The stones in situ were not stock-in- trade and the…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 365/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…uiring mining rights from the Government of Karnataka. This payment was made for acquiring right to excavate the minerals and not for acquiring minerals. The issue before their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pingle Industries vs. CIT (1966)(40 ITR 67)(SC) was whether consideration paid for acquiring right to extract stones by taking on lease for a period of 12 years lands from jagirdar can be allowed as revenue expenditure. Their Lordships, by a majority judgment held that the assessee had acquired by his long- term lease, right to win stones. The stones in situ were not stock-in- trade and the…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 364/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…uiring mining rights from the Government of Karnataka. This payment was made for acquiring right to excavate the minerals and not for acquiring minerals. The issue before their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pingle Industries vs. CIT (1966)(40 ITR 67)(SC) was whether consideration paid for acquiring right to extract stones by taking on lease for a period of 12 years lands from jagirdar can be allowed as revenue expenditure. Their Lordships, by a majority judgment held that the assessee had acquired by his long- term lease, right to win stones. The stones in situ were not stock-in- trade and the…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 363/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…uiring mining rights from the Government of Karnataka. This payment was made for acquiring right to excavate the minerals and not for acquiring minerals. The issue before their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pingle Industries vs. CIT (1966)(40 ITR 67)(SC) was whether consideration paid for acquiring right to extract stones by taking on lease for a period of 12 years lands from jagirdar can be allowed as revenue expenditure. Their Lordships, by a majority judgment held that the assessee had acquired by his long- term lease, right to win stones. The stones in situ were not stock-in- trade and the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD

ITA - 1336 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 293 ITR 437, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rent was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one time or in installments. Royalty or rent would be revenue expenditure,…

Pingle Industries v. CIT (40 ITR 67) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax