- (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the department.
(2.) This court while admitting the appeal framed following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the compensation of Rs.1,67,47,786/- paid to land owners/farmers for using their land for extraction of minerals, as revenue expenditure, inspite of the fact that the assessee by virtue of said expenditure has acquired right of enduring nature and were thus, not allowable as revenue expenditure? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.10,00,000/- contributed by the assessee to State Renewal Fund, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the same was merely an application of fund and not an expenditure? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,34,990/- made by disallowing the contribution to Social Welfare Activities u/s 37(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the same was not incurred exclusively for the purposes of business and hence not allowable? 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer and holding the income from sale of Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates (CERs) of Rs.36,24,742/- as capital income, ignoring that the same was specifically a revenue receipt and even the assessee has claim benefit u/s 801A of the Act? 5. Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of Rs.2,94,04,000/- in respect of Mines Closure Expenses by reversing the orders of CIT(A) and Assessing Officer, even when the said expenditure was not even debited in the books of accounts and is also not an ascertained liability?"
(3.) Now, the issue no.1,2 & 3 are covered by the decision of this court in the case of assessee in ITA No.147/2015 decided on 12.10.2017.;