R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand v. CIT, New Delhi

86 ITR 647Supreme Court of India1972#3717 most cited

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.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand v. CIT · 1972 · 86 ITR 647 · SC · Section 37(1) · mining leases · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · enduring benefit · stock-in-trade

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 37(1)Section 92CA(3)Section 250Section 143(3)Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

section 35absection 35abbtest of enduring benefitsection 35asection 14a(1)resulting companysection 10(34)pptdemergerenduring benefitstrategic investmentjda

Judgments citing R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand v. CIT, New Delhi

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)

…ted to P&L Account. 7. The ld.CIT(DR) submitted that lease premium paid is capital and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as a deduction. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B.Seth Molchand Suganchand vs. CIT (86 ITR 647)(SC) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of P.Abubakar vs. DCIT in ITA No.725/Bang/2009 dated 22/01/2010 and the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Ramgad Minerals & Minings Pvt. Ltd.,(…

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)

…ted to P&L Account. 7. The ld.CIT(DR) submitted that lease premium paid is capital and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as a deduction. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B.Seth Molchand Suganchand vs. CIT (86 ITR 647)(SC) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of P.Abubakar vs. DCIT in ITA No.725/Bang/2009 dated 22/01/2010 and the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Ramgad Minerals & Minings Pvt. Ltd.,(…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1379/MUM/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1379/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) बनाम/ Acit (Ltu) – 1 M/S. Gujarat Ambuja World Trade Centre, Cements Ltd. Vs. Centre – 1, 29Th Floor, 122, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri Soumen Adak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Soumen AdakFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ ‘जी’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी सी. एन. "साद, "ाियक सद", एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद", के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.N.PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1379/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) बनाम/ ACIT (LTU) – 1 M/s. Gujarat Ambuja World Trade Centre, Cements Ltd. Vs. Centre – 1, 29th Floor, 122, Maker Chambers-III, Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACG0569P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR) A…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA/1328/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…s not decisive. The decisive lactor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand vs. CIT, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 647 as minerals in this case were pEirt oF the land and had to be won, extracted and brought to the surlace unlike the case of Jabbar (M.A,) (supra) where the minerals i.e. the sand was on surface and thus was a case relating to expenditure for acquisition of stock in trade and, revenue in nature. Similar treatment was given to the licence fee paid fo…

CIT vs. Bharti Hexacom Limited

ITA/996/2011HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…s not decisive. The decisive lactor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand vs. CIT, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 647 as minerals in this case were pEirt oF the land and had to be won, extracted and brought to the surlace unlike the case of Jabbar (M.A,) (supra) where the minerals i.e. the sand was on surface and thus was a case relating to expenditure for acquisition of stock in trade and, revenue in nature. Similar treatment was given to the licence fee paid fo…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Telenet Ltd

ITA/1333/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…s not decisive. The decisive lactor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand vs. CIT, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 647 as minerals in this case were pEirt oF the land and had to be won, extracted and brought to the surlace unlike the case of Jabbar (M.A,) (supra) where the minerals i.e. the sand was on surface and thus was a case relating to expenditure for acquisition of stock in trade and, revenue in nature. Similar treatment was given to the licence fee paid fo…

CIT vs. Bhartihexacom Ltd

ITA/114/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…s not decisive. The decisive lactor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand vs. CIT, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 647 as minerals in this case were pEirt oF the land and had to be won, extracted and brought to the surlace unlike the case of Jabbar (M.A,) (supra) where the minerals i.e. the sand was on surface and thus was a case relating to expenditure for acquisition of stock in trade and, revenue in nature. Similar treatment was given to the licence fee paid fo…

CIT vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd

ITA/177/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…s not decisive. The decisive lactor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand vs. CIT, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 647 as minerals in this case were pEirt oF the land and had to be won, extracted and brought to the surlace unlike the case of Jabbar (M.A,) (supra) where the minerals i.e. the sand was on surface and thus was a case relating to expenditure for acquisition of stock in trade and, revenue in nature. Similar treatment was given to the licence fee paid fo…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1328 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…s not decisive. The decisive lactor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand vs. CIT, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 647 as minerals in this case were pEirt oF the land and had to be won, extracted and brought to the surlace unlike the case of Jabbar (M.A,) (supra) where the minerals i.e. the sand was on surface and thus was a case relating to expenditure for acquisition of stock in trade and, revenue in nature. Similar treatment was given to the licence fee paid fo…

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

ITA - 1679 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…s not decisive. The decisive lactor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand vs. CIT, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 647 as minerals in this case were pEirt oF the land and had to be won, extracted and brought to the surlace unlike the case of Jabbar (M.A,) (supra) where the minerals i.e. the sand was on surface and thus was a case relating to expenditure for acquisition of stock in trade and, revenue in nature. Similar treatment was given to the licence fee paid fo…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1336 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…ot decisive. The decisive factor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs. CIT, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 647 as minerals in this case were part of the land and had to be won, extracted and brought to the surface unlike the case of Jabbar (M.A.) (supra) where the minerals i.e. the sand was on surface and thus was a case relating to expenditure for acquisition of stock in trade and, revenue in nature. Similar treatment was given to the licence fee pai…

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

ITA - 1680 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…s not decisive. The decisive lactor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in R.Ji. Sett Mooichaiul Sugastchand vs. CIT, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 647 as minerals in this case were pEirt oF the land and had to be won, extracted and brought to the surlace unlike the case of Jabbar (M.A,) (supra) where the minerals i.e. the sand was on surface and thus was a case relating to expenditure for acquisition of stock in trade and, revenue in nature. Similar treatment was given to the licence fee paid fo…