Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (2.37 seconds)
Documents citing Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad on 5 February, 1998

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., ... vs Acit, Jaipur on 30 May, 2017

Hon'ble supreme Court in the matter of Aditya Mineral vs. CIT(1999) 8SSC 97 and also by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT in the Civil Appeal No. 5655 of 2006 whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "where the entire amount of lease is paid either at a time or in installment, it would be capital expenditure". Therefore, we are bound by the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus the expenses laid by the assessee for the purposes of getting the mining land and leasehold land, are required to be treated as capital expenditure. The AO is, therefore, directed to treat the amount paid for getting the mining land and leasehold land as capital expenditure. The AO is further directed to give all benefits as a capital expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 50 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

C. Ramaiah Reddy vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 July, 2003

IT v. V. N. Narayana Bhattadiripad (1972) 83 ITR 453 (SC) at 455 (51) S.N. Swarnammal v. CED (1973) 88 ITR 366 (Mad) (52) CWT v. Sripat Singhania (1978) 112 ITR 363 (All) (53) ITO v. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi (supra) (54) Union of India and Anr. v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. (supra) (55) Punamchand R. Shah v. ITO (supra) (56) Sardar Santosh Singh v. CIT (supra) (57) CIT v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1998) 234 ITR 637 (Raj) (58) CIT v. Rayala Corporation Ltd (1995) 215 ITR 883 (Mad) at 894 & 898 (59) Ashok Singh v. Asstt. CED (supra) (60) Ram Jas v. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 1811 (61) AIR 1972 SC 928 (62) Andhra Bank v. Dy. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 1 (AP) (63) Digvijay Chemicals Ltd v. Asstt. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 381 (All) (64) Clause 48 of NOC (1998) 231 ITR 256 (St) (65) Para 71 Finance Minister's Budget Speech (1995) 212 ITR 87 (St) (66) CIT v. N.C. John & Sons Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 524 (Ker) (67) McDowell & Co. Ltd v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) (68) Virender Bhatia v. Dy. CIT (supra) (69) Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. v. K. Subramanian, ITO (1983) 143 ITR 120 (Bom) at 139 (70) Sura; Mall Mohta & Co. v. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and Anr. (1954) 26 ITR 1 (SC) (71) Verma Roadways v. Asstt. CIT (2001) 70 TTJ (All) 728 : (2000) 75 ITD 183 (All) at 222 (72) Deen Dayal Goyal v. ITAT (1986) 158 ITR 391 (Del) (73) CIT v. Garware Nylons Ltd. (1995) 212 ITR 242 (Bom) (74) Pooranmal v. Director of Inspection (Inv) (supra) (75) Dr. Pratap Singh and Anr. v. Director of Enforcement and Ors. (supra) (76) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors. v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jharvar (1967) 66 ITR 664 (SC) (77) Southern Herabals Ltd. v. CIT (supra) (78) Page 7 para 2 H.V. Srinivas [IT(SS)A No. 86/B/97, dt. 5-8-1997] (79) Page 7 para 2 Poornima Fin Corpn. [IT(SS)A No. 87/B/97, dt. 5-8-1997] (80) Page 3 para 2 S. Abdul Salam (IT(SS)A No. 74/B/97, dt. 16-1-1998] (81) 28 STC 599 SC (supra) (82) Aditya Minerals (P) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) 19.2 On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Department along with the learned representatives for the Revenue, both seniors and juniors, referred to the following provisions of law including under different enactments which were also referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee along with those of the intervenes as well :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 106 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs Sri. K.R. Kaviraj, Hospet on 26 December, 2017

In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (239 ITR 817) the impugned payment made for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the co- ordinate bench decision of Tribunal in the case of P.Abubakar (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case M/s.Ramgad Minerals & Minings Pvt. Ltd.,(supra) is misplaced in the light of the decision of the larger bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd.(supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. K.R.Kaviraj, Hospet vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 26 December, 2017

In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (239 ITR 817) the impugned payment made for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the co- ordinate bench decision of Tribunal in the case of P.Abubakar (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case M/s.Ramgad Minerals & Minings Pvt. Ltd.,(supra) is misplaced in the light of the decision of the larger bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd.(supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Ujjal Transport Agency, Asansol vs D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xvi, ... on 14 July, 2017

17. It suffices in this regard to mention that on the principle of Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. 's case (supra), if the assessee owns the machinery for which investment allowance is claimed, and such machinery is used for production then the section applies; it does not matter if the use for production is made by the lessee or only in one industrial part of the assessee's business undertaking. Accordingly, the transport business of the assessee does not tilt the question one way or the other.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd,, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 7 February, 2023

14. This issue is no longer res integra as it is settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Aditya 10 ITA No.310/PUN/2019 Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (236 ITR 39)(SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that lease rent paid for acquiring mining rights is capital in nature and cannot be allowed as a deduction. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) is as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.I.T.,Delhi vs Bharti Hexacom Ltd. on 16 October, 2023

vi. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Constitution-Bench of this Court in Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1999) 8 SCC 97 (“Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd.”) to assert that the law laid down therein is that as long as payment is towards a capital expenditure, it is immaterial whether it is paid in lump-sum or as periodical payments, or, as a combination of both. That the mode of payment will not be determinative in identifying the nature of the expenditure, i.e., as to whether it is capital or not. vii. That the decision of this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 5 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

Govik Electricals (P.) Ltd. vs Joint Cit, Special Range-15 on 27 December, 2004

In this regard we have further examined few more cases and one of them is Aditya Minerals (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 106 Taxman 337 (SC), wherein there was a lease deed and the assessee was required to pay rent of Rs. 35 per acre per month. The assessee was also required to pay in advance the rent calculated at this rate for the entire period of lease, i.e., 15 years in the form of deposit. The deposit was by way of guarantee for due performance of the said lease deed for 15 years. It was adjustable against the rent of each month. The Hon'ble court has observed that it is true that if a capital sum is arrived at and payment is made every year by chalking out the capital amount in various instalments, the payment does not lose its character as a capital payment if the sum determined was capital in nature.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chembur Patalganga Pipelines Ltd. (Now ... vs Jcit, Spl. Rg. 18 on 3 May, 2005

15. In the present case also what is paid is a compensation for acquisition of right to use the land for laying pipelines. The land was excavated and pipelines were laid. The only difference with the case of Aditya Mineral case (supra) is that payment was made in the form of deposit for 15 years rent. The yearly portion was held as capital. In the present case entire amount is paid in one go. The nature of the two payments are the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 22 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next