9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62/2008 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has not acted perversely in restricting the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 118081/- out of Rs. 10159107/- as capital expenditure when the entire amount was used for making the new mines workable and to deprive the benefit of enduring nature? Appeal No.651/2009 1. whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in holding the mine development expenditure, of not only Rs. 43,08,120/- which was not allowed by CIT(A), but also Rs. 9,36,820/- which was disallowed by the CIT(A), ignoring the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, 1961, and inspite of the fact that the assessee by virtue of said expenditure has acquired benefits of enduring nature and were thus, not allowable as revenue expenditure? 2. whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in holding the mine development expenditure of Rs. 52,44,940/- as revenue expenditure, ignoring the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, 1961, and inspite of the fact that the assessee by virtue of said expenditure has acquired benefits of enduring nature and were thus, not allowable as revenue expendit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure?" Appeal No.63/2010 1. whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in holding the compensation paid to State Government for Rock Phosphate of Rs. 10,41,80,594/- as revenue expenditure, inspite of the fact that the assessee by virtue of said expenditure has acquired benefits of enduring nature and were thus, not allowable as revenue expenditure? 2. whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in holding the mine development expenditure, of not only Rs. 43,08,120/- which was not allowed by CIT(A), but also Rs. 9,36,820/- which was disallowed by the CIT(A), inspite of the fact that the assessee by virtue of said expenditure has acquired benefits of enduring nature and were thus, not allowable as revenue expenditure? 3. whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in holding the mine development expenditure of Rs. 52,44,940/- as revenue expenditure, inspite of the fact that the assessee by virtue of said expenditure has acquired benefits of enduring nature and were thus, not allowable as revenue expenditure? 4. whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efits of enduring nature and were thus, not allowable as revenue expenditure? 3. whether the Tribunal as well as the CIT (A) werejustified in holding the expenses claimed as compensation for Rs. 914,19,192/- paid to land owners/farmers for using their land for extraction of minerals, as revenue expenditure, inspite of the fact that the assessee by virtue of said expenditure has acquired benefits of enduring nature and were thus, not allowable as revenue expenditure? 4. whether the Tribunal as well as the CIT (A) werejustified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- contributed by the assessee to State Renewal Fund, which was disallowed by Assessing Officer as the same was merely an application of fund and not an expenditure? 5. whether the Tribunal as well as the CIT (A) werejustified in allowing expenditure of Rs. 33,66,708.50 u/s 35E of the Act ignoring that the same was neither an expenditure for exploring not prospecting mines or minerals as required u/s 35E, but was a loss suffered by the assessee on account of stopping of mines, due to heavy watershed? Appeal No. 229/12 1. whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in holding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1992-93, it will come into force. The contention which has been raised by Mr. Singhi is required to be accepted, it can only be one time revenue expenditure and subsequent claim of the assessee will not be acceptable and if his claim is made and accepted, it will be for the department to recover the tax from the assessee. In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department for the revenue expenses (Rs.2,96,000/-) of year 1992-93 only one time." 5.2. In CIT vs. Rajasthan Mines & Minerals Ltd. D.B. Income Tax Reference 1/2000 decided on 15.9.2016 wherein similar view was taken. 5.3. In Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation, Jaipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur decided on 14.12.2016 wherein it has been observed as under:- Taking into consideration the observations which are made by this court in earlier judgment of the same assessee in para no. 11 & 13 holding as under:- He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1989) 177 ITR 0377 and Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
