IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 PAN: AAACB5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee by: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]

Revenue by: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Date of conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026

ORDER

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI;

This assessee’s appeal filed u/s 253(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] impugns order dt. 27/12/2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] which in turn arisen out of order dt. 28/03/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by ACIT, Circle-2(1), Panaji Goa [‘Ld.

AO’] anent to assessment year 2013-14.[‘AY’]

2. The sole & substantive grievance came for adjudication in this appeal revolves around determination of true nature, character & substance of stamp duty paid to the ‘Government of Goa’ [‘GoG’] as consideration for grant of mining licence/lease for a period of twenty years and deductibility thereof (if any) under the provisions of the Act.

3. Succinctly stated pertinent facts arising out of the case records are that;

3.1 The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of mining & export of iron ore minerals, transport and other allied activities. For the year under consideration the assessee filed its return of income on 28/09/2013 declaring total income of ₹54,10,05,410/-. The said return of income of the assessee company in first instance without variation was summarily processed by the Revenue u/s 143(1) of the Act.

3.2 Subsequently, vide notice dt. 03/09/2014 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, the case of the assessee selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 28/03/2016 was completed wherein the Ld. AO inter-alia disallowed a sum of ₹16Crs paid to the Government of Goa in the form of stamp duty towards renewal of mining lease/licence for a period of twenty (20) years which was claimed as revenue expenditure in the year of payment u/s 37(1) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. While disallowing so the Ld. AO treated the stamp duty payment as consideration for acquiring mining rights being a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act, which allowed the assessee to extract iron ore minerals and generate a circulating capital in the form of ‘stock-in-trade’ and consequential revenue realisation on sale in ordinary course of its business.

3.3 Aggrieved by all four disallowances and the assessment as such, the assessee preferred an appeal u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act before the Ld. NFAC who partly allowed the assessee’s appeal by; (a) partially vacating disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act, (b) reversing later two consecutive disallowances made towards construction of roads/temples and disallowance of additional depreciation etc. The Ld. NFAC however, after recording his independent & concurrent findings in line with the findings rendered by the Ld. AO and placing reliance on alike judicial precedents, upheld the disallowance towards ‘stamp duty’ paid to State Government of Goa for renewal of mining lease/licence for a period of twenty years holding it to be a payment for acquiring a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and further turned down the alternative ground of consequential depreciation thereon.

3.4 Aggrieved by the actions of tax authorities below, the assessee company came in present appeal on following sole & substantive ground (as raised & in Form No 36 and endorsed through revised grounds of appeal filed vide separate letter dt 03/04/2025) as;

‘The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Renewal