This appeal questioned the Tribunal's disallowance of expenditure on rights issues not increasing capital base and losses on capital investments. Upholding the Tribunal, the bench answered all substantial questions against the assessee, dismissing the appeal.
God.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Tax Case Appeal No.1531 of 2008
M/s.Integrated Finance Co. Ltd., 112, Thyagaraja Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. .... Appellant
Vs. .... Respondent
The Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Special Range - VIII, Chennai - 600 034.
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 14.07.2006 made in ITA No.1923/Mds/2002 for the assessment year 1995-96.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Renganathan
J U D G M E N T (Delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J)
This Tax Case (Appeal) has been filed by the Assessee calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras dated 14.07.2006 in respect of assessment year 1995-96.
2
The following substantial questions of law have been admitted by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2008:
"i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction of expenditure incurred in connection with rights issue of equity shares which did not result in increase of the capital base of the Company?
ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the loss in investments is not an allowable deduction?
iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the above disallowances in an intimation under section 143(1)(a)/143(1B) of the Act ignoring the fact that the issue is a highly debatable one and hence cannot be disallowed in a prima facie assessment under these Sections?”
and Mr.Karthik Renganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for the Revenue.
3
no infirmity in the order of the tribunal and substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 3 are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
4
DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
TCA No.1531 of 2008
18.12.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction of expenditure incurred in connection with rights issue of equity shares which did not result in increase of t
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss in investments, held as capital assets, is not an allowable deduction?
Whether the disallowance in an intimation under Section 143(1)(a)/143(1B) could be upheld given the debatable nature of the issue?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Brooke Bond India Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income TaxFollowed¶24
(1997) 225 ITR 798
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Integrated Finance Co. Ltd.
The Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Special Range - VIII, Chennai
Vineet Kothari
Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
