A two-judge bench allowed an Income Tax Appeal arising from a High Court precedent. The court dismissed the appeal in favour of the assessee, ruling that questions of law regarding personal expenses and commission receipt were decided previously in a Division Bench judgment.
Appeal dismissed in favour of the assessee; no costs.
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: 14-12-2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Tax Case Appeal No.902 of 2008
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
-vs-
Shri C.S.Narasimhan ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 17.10.2007, made in ITA No.1547/Mds/2006.
For appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, Senior Standing Counsel. For respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth,J.)
The questions of law, on which this appeal has been admitted,
are as follows :
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts paid by the company towards personal expenses of the assessee cannot be taxed in its hands under Section 2 (24) (iv) as the amount was routed through the franchisee, which was the HUF of the assessee ?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the matter back to the assessing officer on the issue of receipt of commission, when the entity which is supposed to have received the commission was formed only after the survey was conducted ?”
perusal of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 17.10.2007 impugned before us, we find that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on its
own orders for Assessment Years 1996-1997 to 2001-2002 in ITA Nos.2089 to 2094(Mds)/2005, dated 23.06.2006.
3
at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax and a Division Bench of
this Court has, in T.C.A.Nos.48 to 71 of 2007 in the case of Commissioner
of Income Tax v . C.S.Srivatsan & Others (358 ITR 10), decided the
identical questions of law as before us in favour of the assessee and against
the revenue.
4. In the light of the above, this appeal is decided in favour of
the assessee and against the revenue. Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(V.K.,J.) (A.S.M.,J.)
14-12-2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking Order
dixit
To
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'A' Bench,
Chennai
4
DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
dixit
T.C.A.No.902 OF 2008
14-12-2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether amounts paid towards personal expenses routed through a franchisee (HUF) can be taxed under Section 2(24)(iv).
Whether the Tribunal was right in remanding the matter regarding commission receipt due to entity formation timing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax v. C.S. Srivatsan & OthersFollowed¶4
Commissioner of Income Tax v. C.S.Srivatsan & Others (358 ITR 10)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
Shri C.S.Narasimhan
Vineet Kothari
Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
