Mining rights payments: upfront licence and tender amounts are capital expenditure when they secure an enduring source of minerals.

Payments made to obtain mining or prospecting rights were treated as capital expenditure because they secured the initial right to commence operations or acquire a source of minerals rather than recurring outgoings in an existing business. The prospecting licence fee was held capital in nature since it was an upfront payment to initiate mining and was not linked to extraction volume. Likewise, the tender payment for the right to extract mica from a developed area was capital, as it created an enduring advantage and a source from which trading stock would later be obtained. Both amounts were therefore not allowable as revenue expenditure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prospecting licence fee paid for obtaining a prospecting licence was allowable as revenue expenditure; (ii) Whether the amount paid under the mining tender, to the extent of the apportioned balance, was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether the prospecting licence fee paid for obtaining a prospecting licence was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The fee was paid to obtain a prospecting licence for initiating mining operations and was an initial outlay incurred before the mine had started working. The payment was not dependent on the quantity of minerals obtained and did not represent expenditure in the course of carrying on an existing business. A statutory right under the Mineral Concession Rules did not alter the character of the payment as one made to commence the venture.

Conclusion: The prospecting licence fee was not allowable as revenue expenditure and was capital in nature, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount paid under the mining tender, to the extent of the apportioned balance, was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The tender payment was made to acquire the right to extract mica from an area already worked and developed by predecessors for a long term lease. The mica in situ was not stock-in-trade; it became trading stock only after extraction. The payment secured a source from which stock-in-trade would be obtained and brought into existence an advantage of enduring benefit, so its real character was that of capital expenditure rather than purchase of raw material or rent. The reasoning followed the distinction drawn in cases dealing with acquisition of mining rights and mineral deposits in situ.

Conclusion: The apportioned balance of the tender payment was not allowable as revenue expenditure and was capital in nature, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee on both questions, holding both payments to be capital expenditures and not deductible as revenue outgoings.

Ratio Decidendi: Payments made to acquire mining or prospecting rights, where they secure an enduring advantage or a source from which trading stock is later extracted, are capital expenditure and not allowable as revenue expenditure.

---