TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent/assessee. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court by an order dated 30.11.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: "1) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case the Tribunal erred by not considering that subsides which may be used freely, are operational subsidies and not capital subsides and thus the same are taxable as revenue income? 2) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer on account of claim of deduction of proportionate amount of lease hold land written off of Rs. 20,50,052? 3) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made by the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../assessee had acquired mining lease of 9.99 kilometer land in village- Chittorgarh for mining of lime stone for use as raw material for manufacture of cement. To carry out mining operation/business operation, in terms of the lease deed as well as pursuant to the provision of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the compensation for damages caused to the surface of the lease area or for infringement of rights of any person by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, was to be paid. In the matter of the respondent/assessee, the compensation for damages caused to the surface or infringement of rights was determined by the Collector and it was paid by the assessee. Accordingly, the respondent/assessee claimed Rs. 20,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee in mining lease area, then necessarily it is an expenditure for carrying out business operation. Therefore, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have not committed any error of law to hold that the aforesaid amount is a business expenditure and its deduction from income was lawfully claimed by the respondent/assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed on this question and the question deserves to be answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the appeal. 8. It is undisputed that the assessee acquired a mining lease of 9.99 kilometers situated in village- Chittorgarh for obtaining lime st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prising Enterprise (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant has no bearing on facts of the present case inasmuch as the controversy involved in that case was as to whether the lease rent paid by the mining lessee for acquiring leasehold right for extracting minerals from mineral bearing land would be a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure ? In the present set of facts there is no such controversy and, instead, the controversy is with regard to the expenditure in the form of compensation incurred by the respondent/assessee during the course of mining/business operation. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is clearly distinguishable and is of no help. 10. In view of the afore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value as so increased;" 12. Thus, reducing the block assets by the amount in question representing the sale of some of the assets out of the block assets is in terms of the afore-quoted provisions of Section 43(6)(c)(i)(B) of the Act, 1961 which permits reduction of money in respect of any asset falling within that block which is sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed during the previous year together with amount of scrap value, if any, so, however, that the amount of such deduction does not exceed the written down value as so increased. The deduction by the amount in question is undoubtedly under the aforesaid provisions of Section 43(6)(c)(i)(B) of the Act, 1961. Therefore, the CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have no....