Partly allowed

M/S Upasana Finance Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC9 Feb 2016TC/948/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tax appeal by M/s. Upasana Finance Ltd. against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was disposed of. The High Court answered the first question of law in favour of the assessee and the second against it, following cited precedents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal regarding capital nature of software expenditure was allowed; the appeal regarding disallowance of PNA provisions was dismissed.

M/S Upasana Finance Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 09.2.2016

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶7

Tax Case Appeal No.948 of 2007

¶8

M/s.Upasana Finance Ltd., Chennai-4. ...Appellant Vs

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III(3), Chennai-34.

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the

¶12

order dated 6.9.2006 made in I.T.A.No.2156/Mds/2003 on the file of the

¶13

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2000-2001.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.K.Sureshkumar for Mr.M.Swaminathan

¶16

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J

¶17

This appeal by the assessee was admitted on 26.6.2007 on the following two substantial questions of law :

¶18

"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in treating the expenditure in the acquisition of software as of capital nature ? and

¶19

(2)

¶20

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J AND N.KIRUBAKARAN,J

¶21

¶22

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in disallowing provisions for non performing assets, which was debited in the profit and loss account ?"

¶23

Heard Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K. Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

The first question of law is to be answered in favour of the assessee,

¶25

in view of the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Shri Renuga Textile Mills Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 649]. The second question of law is to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department in view of the decision of this Court in Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. Assistant CIT

¶26

[(2009) 318 ITR 452].

¶27

The above tax case appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

09.2.2016

Internet : Yes

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III(3), Ch-34. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench

¶32

TCA.No.948 of 2007

M/S Upasana Finance Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Upasana Finance Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Benjahamin Vs the Customs Excise and Service

M/S.J.M.Baxi & Co., Vs the Joint Secretary, Ministry

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Jaya Ramamurthy

Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S the Peria Karamalai Tea

M/S Industrial Feeders Vs the Asst Commissioner

M/S. Procon Instrumentation Vs the Assistant Commissioner of