On a Tax Case under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the High Court noted that the Department had introduced a Circular instructing that appeals with tax effects under Rs.50 lakhs should not be pursued before the High Court.
The appeal filed by the Revenue was 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: 18.3.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. Appellant/Appellant
M/s.N.E.P.C.India Limited, No.36, Wallajah Road, Chennai 600 002.
G.I.No./PA No.AAACN 1567E Respondent/Respondent
Tax Case filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 7.3.2008 made in ITA No.1264/Mds/2002 against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central I, Chennai dated 12.03.2002 in I.T.A. No. 179/2001-2002 against the Assessmeny order dated 30.03.1999 and made in P.A. No. AAACN1567E by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle I(1) Chennai for the Assessment year 19961997.
For respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman
(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)
This Tax Case has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 7.3.2008 made in ITA No.1264/Mds/2002, by raising the following substantial questions of law:
"i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of Rs.13,24,183/- representing purchase of air manuals, air-conditioners, etc., as revenue expenditure?
ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction of Rs.6,29,104/- being the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) of the Act?
iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction being the disallowance on account of delayed remittance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund and Employer's contribution to Provident Fund without actually verifying the correctness of the dates of payment?
iv) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the expenditure towards alteration of factory building as revenue expenditure?"
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ssk.
To
Tax Case No.2101 of 2008
GJ(CO) SP(02/05/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction for purchase of air manuals and air-conditioners as revenue expenditure.
Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction regarding disallowance under Section 40A(3).
Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction for disallowance on account of delayed remittance of Employees' and Employer's Contribution to Provident Fund.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai
M/s. N.E.P.C. India Limited
VINEET KOTHARI
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
