The High Court dismissed the Revenue's Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as not pressed, following a CBDT circular restricting appeals where tax effect is below Rs.50 lakhs, while keeping legal questions open.
The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 7.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Tax Case No.405 of 2008
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Appellant
Vs.
M/s.S&S Power Finvest Limited, 168 Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Chennai 600 116. Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 23.2.2007 made in ITA No.1528/Mds/2003 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)VI in I.T.A. No. 554/01-02 dated 25.03.2003 filed against the Assessment order dated 28.03.2001 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle IV(6) Chennai 6 for the Assessment year 1998-1999.
For respondent : Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
J U D G M E N T (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 23.2.2007 made in ITA No.1528/Mds/2003, by raising the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income from UK Company should only be taxed on receipt basis, when the assessee was following a mercantile system of accounting?
ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure on market research, due diligence report, etc., incurred even prior to the investment in shares of the foreign company should be treated as a business expenditure?"
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ssk.
To
1. The Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Madras 'C' Bench
Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VI
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Chennai 34
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Company Circle IV(6) Chennai 6
TC No.405 of 2008
RSI(CO)
SP(21/01/2019)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai
M/s.S&S Power Finvest Limited
VINEET KOTHARI
ANITA SUMANTH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
