Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Sutherland Global Services

Madras HC7 Jul 2020TCA/305/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A. Relying on finality of earlier decisions in identical transactions for other years accepted by the department, the Court held the appeal unsustainable and answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue.

What did the court decide?

Tax Case Appeal dismissed; substantial questions of law answered against the revenue; no costs awarded.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Sutherland Global Services — Income Tax | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.07.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

Tax Case Appeal No.305 of 2018

¶7

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ..Appellant/Appellate

¶8

versus

¶9

M/s.Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd.,

¶10

45A, Velacherry Main Road, Velacherry,

¶11

Chennai – 600 042. ..Respondent/Respondent

¶12

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order made in ITA No.658/Mds/2016 dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, for the Assessment Year 2005-06 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34, dated 17/12/2015 and made in ITA.No.436/CIT(A)-15/13-14 against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI(4) 7^th floor New Block, Room No.705, 121, MG Road, Chennai dated 31/03/2013 and made in PAN/GIR.No.AAECS8093A.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy Senior Standing Counsel

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji

¶15

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

¶16

This appeal by the revenue is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for brevity), challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Madras, in ITA No.658/Mds/2016 dated 28.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2005-06.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

The appeal was admitted on 04.12.2019 on the following Substantial Questions of Law:

¶19

“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was correct in holding that the excess amount received by the assessee on reimbursement received from M/s.Symantec Corporation, USA on account of assets purchased and used by the assessee for the work towards the payee company as “Capital Receipts” as against the stand of the Assessing Officer that it was “Income from other Sources”?

¶20

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact the above sum is not due to any sale of fixed assets exclusively and that it is received only during the course of business activity which the assessee itself credited under the head “Other Income”?”

¶21

We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

¶22

After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the revenue cannot sustain this appeal for more than one reason. Firstly, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while deciding the appeal petition filed by the assessee against the order of assessment dated 31.03.2013, partly allowed the assessee's appeal by following the decision in the assessee's own case in respect of an identical transaction for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. It was pointed out that since the facts of the case are identical to the Assessment Years referred above, the CIT (A) followed the order of the tribunal.

¶23

It is evident that as on the date when the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal by an order dated 17.12.2015, no appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the tribunal dated 26.07.2012, for the Assessment Year 2006-07 or 08.03.2013, for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Had an appeal been preferred, revenue could have taken a stand before the CIT(A) that the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.07.2012 and 08.03.2013, have not been accepted by the Department and not attained finality. Since no such stand was taken, it is clear that the decisions have been accepted by the Department. Nevertheless, for the Assessment Year under consideration, the revenue thought it fit to file an appeal before the tribunal.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

The tribunal took note of its earlier decisions, referred above and dismissed the appeal. Even before the tribunal, the revenue did not produce any material to show that the orders passed by the tribunal for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were taken on appeal before the Division Bench of this Court.

¶26

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the revenue cannot maintain this appeal. For the above reasons the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. The Substantial Questions of Law are answered against the revenue. No Costs.

¶27

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(AD I)MDU
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ars/raja
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle VI(4) 7 th Floor New Block,
Room No.705, 121 MG Road, Chennai.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.
TCA No.305 of 2018
PP(CO)
KKV/14/08/2020

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Sutherland Global Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Sutherland Global Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri J.S.Kamath

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Skm Animal Feeds and Foods Ltd.

The Commissioner of Incometax, Vs M/S. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Gita Wind Energy

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Tidel Park Ltd.

Principal Commissioner Vs N. Muthusamy