Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad on 5 February, 1998 cites

Pingle Industries Ltd., Secunderabad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad on 26 April, 1960

1. The appellant had taken 25 acres of land on lease for 15 years and had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs 35 per month per acre. The land was taken on lease so that it could carry out excavation thereon and recover manganese ore for sale. It claimed that Rs 10,752 being the yearly rent was allowable as a revenue deduction the same having been incurred in connection with the carrying on of its business of mining. Following the decision of this Court in Pingle Industries Ltd. v. CIT, the Income Tax authorities, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have held that the expense of Rs 10,752 has to be regarded as a capital expense and not a revenue expense.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 76 - J L Kapur - Full Document

M/S. Gotan Lime Syndicate vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi And ... on 15 November, 1965

3. Ms Janaki Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn our attention to another decision of three Judges of this Court in Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT, . In that case, the assessee which was carrying on the business of manufacturing lime from limestone, was granted a lease with a right to excavate limestone. The lease was initially for a period of five years and contained an option for renewal. Dead rent was charged at the rate of Rs 10 per acre while royalty was charged on the amount of limestone excavated. The question arose whether the dead rent and the royalty which was paid was capital expenditure or business expenditure. It was held by this Court that the royalty as well as the dead rent which was paid was relatable to the lime deposits and the annual amount paid by the assessee was allowable as a revenue expenditure. Reference in this judgment was made to the aforesaid decision in Pingle Industries, and in regard thereto this Court observed as follows: 'The case of Pingle Industries Lid. v. CIT1 is distinguishable because on the facts it was a lump sum payment in instalments for acquiring a capital asset of enduring benefit to his trade."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 95 - S M Sikri - Full Document

R. B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 19 September, 1972

6. Our attention has also been invited to a subsequent decision of this Court in R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand v. CIT, . In this judgment, by a Division Bench of two Judges, the decision in Pingle Industries, was followed and it was held that the amount paid for obtaining mining lease for 20 years was a capital expenditure. We, however, find that the attention of the Court was not drawn to the decision in Gotan Lime, . Prima facie, it appears that there is a conflict in the decisions of this Court delivered by Coordinate Benches in Pingle Industries, and Gotan Lime, . The question involved is of a recurring nature and it is essential that the conflict should be resolved authoritatively.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 48 - P J Reddy - Full Document
1