Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the lease payments made for obtaining sand from the leased areas were revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.
Analysis: The lease deed granted exclusive rights over specified sand areas in the river bed and nullahs, described as quarries, and authorised the lessee to carry away, sell and dispose of sand from those areas. Sand was treated under the governing rules as a minor mineral and its removal amounted to quarrying. The decisive consideration was the nature of the right acquired and the advantage obtained for the business. A payment made to acquire an enduring advantage or a capital asset is not deductible as revenue expenditure. The Court distinguished cases where loose material merely lying on the surface was purchased as stock-in-trade, holding that the present lease was for acquisition of sand areas and the right to work them, not for the purchase of sand already available as trading stock.
Conclusion: The lease payments were capital expenditure and not allowable as revenue expenditure. The question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a lease confers exclusive rights over mineral-bearing areas for the purpose of working them and acquiring sand or similar material from those areas, the payment is capital in nature if it secures an enduring advantage to the trade rather than circulating stock-in-trade.