9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of assets subject to valuation. 2. Mode of valuation to be followed. Detailed Analysis: Nature of Assets Subject to Valuation: The primary issue revolved around whether the mining leases held by the assessee constituted assets under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee operated various mines in Maharashtra under lease deeds executed in the model form (Form K) as per the Mineral Concession Rules. The ITO initially determined that leasehold rights did not constitute capital assets employed in the business, treating them as intangible assets. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, concluding that the leasehold rights were indeed valuable assets of the industrial undertaking, rejecting the ITO's view that they were merely licenses. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s view, stating that the lease deeds executed in Form K were indeed leasehold rights and not licenses. The Tribunal emphasized that these leasehold rights constituted valuable assets of the assessee's industrial undertaking. The Tribunal noted that the terms "lease" and "license" have definite legal meanings and that the legislative authorities used these terms correctly in the Mining Act and Mineral Concession Rules. Mode of Valuation to be Followed: The second issue concerned the appropriate method for valuing these leasehold rights. The assessee argued that the value of the mining leases should be determined based on their market value, citing a valuation report by the Chief Geologist and General Manager estimating the value at Rs. 5 crores. The ITO and the Commissioner (Appeals) had valued the leasehold rights at cost, reflecting the expenses recorded in the assessee's books of account (Rs. 1,02,458). The Tribunal clarified that Section 80J(1A)(II) of the Income-tax Act classifies assets into those entitled to depreciation and those not entitled to depreciation. For assets not entitled to depreciation, the valuation depends on whether they were acquired by purchase or otherwise. The Tribunal concluded that the leasehold rights, being acquired otherwise than by purchase, should be valued based on their market value when they became assets of the business. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner (Appeals)'s view that the leasehold rights had no significant market value due to a supposed ban on charging premiums for transfers. The Tribunal found no such absolute ban in the lease deeds or relevant provisions of the Mining Act and Mineral Concession Rules. It emphasized that mining leases are valuable assets and should be valued on the principle of assuming a willing buyer and willing seller in the market. The Tribunal noted that neither the ITO nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had properly evaluated the valuation report submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the ITO to determine the market value of the leasehold rights, allowing both the assessee and the ITO to obtain expert valuations and present relevant evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the leasehold rights held by the assessee constituted assets of the industrial undertaking and should be valued at their market value when they became assets of the business. The ITO was directed to reassess the market value of these assets and provide appropriate deductions under Section 80J for the relevant assessment years. The appeals filed by the assessee were deemed to have been allowed for statistical purposes.
|
