What is R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand v. CIT, New Delhi authority for?

Expenditure incurred for acquiring mining rights to win and extract minerals from the earth is capital in nature, while expenditure for acquiring already-won minerals on the surface, considered stock-in-trade, is revenue expenditure.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand v. CIT, New Delhi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 37(1), Section 92CA(3), Section 250, Section 143(3).

R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand v. CIT, New Delhi (86 ITR 647)

Q: How many judgments cite R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand v. CIT, New Delhi?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand v. CIT, New Delhi (86 ITR 647), spanning 2013 to 2026.

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…be examined as to whether the fine or penalty imposed was for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law or the same was incurred for continuation of the business of the assessee. In the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 647 (SC) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of expenditure in respect of mining leases, an empirical test is that where minerals have to Page 50 ITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 & 1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019 AYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15 M/s. Coal India Ltd. be won, extracted and brought to surface by mining operations,…

M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata

ITA 1407/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 1Section 115JSection 250

…be examined as to whether the fine or penalty imposed was for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law or the same was incurred for continuation of the business of the assessee. In the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 647 (SC) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of expenditure in respect of mining leases, an empirical test is that where minerals have to be won, extracted and brought to surface by mining operations, the expenditure incurred for acquiring such a right would be of a capital nature. But, where the mineral has already been got…

DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Coal India Limited, Kolkata

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…be examined as to whether the fine or penalty imposed was for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law or the same was incurred for continuation of the business of the assessee. In the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 647 (SC) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of expenditure in respect of mining leases, an empirical test is that where minerals have to be won, extracted and brought to surface by mining operations, the expenditure incurred for acquiring such a right would be of a capital nature. But, where the mineral has already been got…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Feegrade and Company Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the substantial questions of law are answered against

ITAT/25/2018HC Calcutta04 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 73

…1 OD-23 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA No.GA 2 OF 2018 (OLD NO: GA/399/2018) In ITAT 25 OF 2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. FEEGRADE & COMPANY PVT. LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : January 04, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. for the appellant Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv. for the respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in brevity) is directed ag…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1374/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…y assessee held the Product development expenses to be capital expenditure, as assessee did not prove the expenses to be recurring in nature. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R.B.Seth Moolchand Suganchand Vs.CIT reported in (1972) 86 ITR 647. The Ld.AO however granted depreciation @ 25 %.  The Ld.AO observed that assessee had earned exempt free income from mutual funds of Rs.2,03,59,232/-. It was also noted by the Ld.AO that assessee had voluntarily disallowed Rs.18,52,411/- as expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) under read with section 14 A of the Act. 2.6 After considering the submis…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1373/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…y assessee held the Product development expenses to be capital expenditure, as assessee did not prove the expenses to be recurring in nature. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R.B.Seth Moolchand Suganchand Vs.CIT reported in (1972) 86 ITR 647. The Ld.AO however granted depreciation @ 25 %.  The Ld.AO observed that assessee had earned exempt free income from mutual funds of Rs.2,03,59,232/-. It was also noted by the Ld.AO that assessee had voluntarily disallowed Rs.18,52,411/- as expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) under read with section 14 A of the Act. 2.6 After considering the submis…

M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1255/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…y assessee held the Product development expenses to be capital expenditure, as assessee did not prove the expenses to be recurring in nature. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R.B.Seth Moolchand Suganchand Vs.CIT reported in (1972) 86 ITR 647. The Ld.AO however granted depreciation @ 25 %.  The Ld.AO observed that assessee had earned exempt free income from mutual funds of Rs.2,03,59,232/-. It was also noted by the Ld.AO that assessee had voluntarily disallowed Rs.18,52,411/- as expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) under read with section 14 A of the Act. 2.6 After considering the submis…

M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1254/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…y assessee held the Product development expenses to be capital expenditure, as assessee did not prove the expenses to be recurring in nature. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R.B.Seth Moolchand Suganchand Vs.CIT reported in (1972) 86 ITR 647. The Ld.AO however granted depreciation @ 25 %.  The Ld.AO observed that assessee had earned exempt free income from mutual funds of Rs.2,03,59,232/-. It was also noted by the Ld.AO that assessee had voluntarily disallowed Rs.18,52,411/- as expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) under read with section 14 A of the Act. 2.6 After considering the submis…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata -1 vs. M/S. Rungta Sons Pvt Ltd

In the result, the substantial

ITAT/295/2017HC Calcutta10 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260A

…late Tribunal, has erred in law in not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 39 (SC) and in the case of R.R.B. Seth Moolchand Sugam Chand vs. CIT reported in [1972] 86 ITR 647 (SC)?” We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Subash Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. It is not disputed before us that identical substantial questions of law were considered by this Court in the case of group company of the respondent/assessee in ITAT/133/2015 and by judgment…