| Case ID |
d3aac9c3-3b38-40f8-a612-05bce8637fa9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2514 AND 2515 OF 1966 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 23, 1967 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of India concluded that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in obtaining the lease for sand extraction was revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. The Court found that the lease was for a short period of 11 months and did not confer any enduring capital asset. The right acquired under the lease was solely to remove sand lying on the surface, which constituted the stock-in-trade of the business. The findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were upheld, reversing the earlier High Court decision. The Court emphasized the importance of the nature of the expenditure in relation to the business operations, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of M.A. Jabbar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Supreme Court addressed the critical distinction between revenue and capital expenditure under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue was whether the payment made for a short-term lease to extract sand constituted revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The Court meticulously analyzed the lease terms, duration, and the nature of the rights granted. It was determined that since the lease was for a mere 11 months and the assessee only obtained the right to remove sand lying on the surface, the payment made for the lease should be classified as revenue expenditure. The implications of this ruling are significant for businesses engaged in similar activities, as it clarifies the treatment of lease payments in tax assessments. This case also highlights the importance of understanding the nature of business expenditures and their implications for tax liabilities. The decision reinforces the principle that expenditures related to operational activities that do not result in the acquisition of lasting assets are to be treated as revenue expenses, thereby impacting the taxable income of businesses. This case serves as a precedent for similar future disputes regarding the nature of lease payments and their classification for tax purposes. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of India
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
J.C. SHAH,
V. RAMASWAMI,
V. BHARGAVA
|
| Lawyers |
Y.V. Anjaneyulu,
Anwarullah Pasha,
J.B. Dadachanji,
O.C. Mathur,
S.T. Desai,
R.N. Sachthey,
S.P. Nayyar
|
| Petitioners |
M.A. Jabbar
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of INCOME TAX
|
| Citations |
1968 SLD 144,
(1968) 68 ITR 493
|
| Other Citations |
Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC),
Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC),
Abdul Kayoom v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 689 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
37(1)
|