1957 (8) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the company to the owners of the surface land just above the coal mines at the time when de-pillaring operations started. In a coal mine it is the usual practice that coal is extracted through gallery working when the roof of the mine remains supported on the pillars of coal. After the gallery working, coal is extracted from these pillars which have to be demolished in that very process. This operation of winning coal from such pillars is called de-pillaring operation. When de-pillaring operations starts, the roof which the pillars support necessarily subsides and a colliery owner has to pay compensation for surface lands to the owners of the surface lands. The amount of ₹ 10,266 represents the amount of compensation paid by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r surface damage, the assessee undertook to make payments to the lessors on specified dates in respect of each acre or part of an acre beneath which coal seams had first been worked since the previous accounting date. It was contended on behalf of the assessee in that case that payments to the lessors under the surface damage provisions of these leases were admissible deductions in computing profits. The Special Commissioners held that the amounts paid by the assessee to the lessors in consideration of the indemnities against liability for surface damage were of the nature of recurring business expenditure and allowed the sums as deductions. This view was affirmed by the King's Bench Division and it was held that the amounts paid by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd Sons' Collieries Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1924] 8 Tax Cas. 671 that the sum paid by the colliery company for restoring to an arable state all ground occupied by it or damaged by its workings was in the nature of capital expenditure and was not, therefore, a proper deduction in computing the company's liability to income-tax. The question is, on which side of the line the present case falls. In my opinion, the expenditure incurred by the assessee is capital expenditure in the circumstances of this case and is not a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. I think that the present case falls within the ratio of Robert Addie and Sons' Collieries Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue....