The High Court of Judicature at Madras closed two Tax Case Appeals filed by the Revenue. The court held that the necessity to decide the substantial questions of law framed had become academic due to subsequent developments dismissing the main appeals.
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 : 06.7.2020
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Tax Case Appeal Nos.242 & 243 of 2015
The Commissioner of Income
Tax, Chennai ...Appellant/Respondent
Vs
M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. ...Respondent/Appellant
APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 04.7.2014 made in S.P.Nos.184 and 185 /Mds/2014 respectively in ITA.Nos.2157/Mds/2011 and 2353/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 against the Assessment order dated 29.10.2012 made in GIR/PA No.AAACH2364M Assessment year 2008-09 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai, and the file No.DRP/CHE/17/2012 order dated 31/08/2012 before the Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai and the file of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai Assessment order dated 31/10/2011 made in GIR/PA No.AAACh2634M Assessment Year 2007-08.
For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC &
Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC
For Respondent:Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan, learned counsel on record for the respondent.
“i. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee had cooperated in the appeal proceedings and granted stay of recovery of tax for a further period of 90 days or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, which is contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act ? and
ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by granting stay of further period of 90 days or until disposal of the appeal, which is contrary to the statutory provision enacted and against the intention of the Legislature ?”
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO MDU)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
RS
To
TCA.Nos.242 & 243 of 2015
RLD(CO)
GMY(10/09/2020)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd.
T.S. Sivagnanam
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
