2019 (6) TMI 305 - HC - Income Tax

Admissibility of the deduction expenditure towards contribution to the State Renewal Fund - HELD THAT - Issue stands covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. 2016 (9) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Claim towards mines closure plan - claim denied on the ground that the assessee had not provisioned it in the books of accounts and it was not an ascertained liability - HELD THAT - The issue stands covered by the judgment in assessee s case Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. Rajasthan State Mines Minerals Ltd 2017 (10) TMI 1458 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT against the revenue. Permissibility of relief on account of the same transactions and whether that was capital in nature - HELD THAT - Here to this Court decided in favour of the assessee by the judgment in Rajasthan State Mines Minerral Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2017 (12) TMI 1698 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Depreciation or amortization of mining land and lease hold land the assessee had not claimed in its return - This was the ground of rejection the CIT (A) confirmed the AO s order - as urged on the strength of the authority of Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT that in the absence of even a revised return such claims are impermissible - HELD THAT - The Revenue does not contend substantively on this aspect. This court ruled in favour of the same assessee in Rajasthan State Mines Minerals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax 2017 (12) TMI 1698 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT the rights which are given to the assessee are of commercial rights which are akin to license for mining. 13.2. In that view of the matter the contention of the assessee regarding depreciation u/s 32(ii) is required to be accepted therefore the second issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.

Issues:
1. Admissibility of deduction expenditure towards contribution to the State Renewal Fund.
2. Claim towards mines closure plan.
3. Permissibility of relief on account of the same transactions and whether it was capital in nature.
4. Allowing depreciation or amortization of mining land and leasehold land.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the admissibility of the deduction expenditure towards contribution to the State Renewal Fund. The appellant argued that this issue is covered by a previous judgment. The Court referred to a specific case and ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the issue stands covered against the Revenue.

2. The second issue concerns the claim towards mines closure plan. The appellant's claim was denied due to lack of provisioning in the books of accounts. The Court referenced a judgment in a related case and decided in favor of the appellant, stating that the issue stands covered against the Revenue.

3. The third issue involves the permissibility of relief on the same transactions and whether it was capital in nature. The Court cited a judgment in favor of the appellant in a previous case, ruling in favor of the assessee. The Court decided this issue in favor of the appellant.

4. The fourth issue revolves around allowing depreciation or amortization of mining land and leasehold land. The appellant had not claimed this in the return, leading to rejection by the CIT (A). The Court referred to a Supreme Court authority and ruled that such claims are impermissible without a revised return. The Revenue did not contest this aspect, and the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, citing specific terms from a previous judgment.

5. The Court concluded that no question of law was involved in the mentioned aspects. However, the Court highlighted that the final outcome of pending special leave petitions before the Supreme Court would bind the parties. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, indicating that the parties would be bound by the Supreme Court's judgment in this matter.

← Previous Next →