Revenue appealed under Section 260A regarding business loss deductions. High Court dismissed the appeal based on low tax effect per Cb D T Circular No. 17/2019, leaving issues open with liberty to restore if threshold rises.
Tax case appeal dismissed on account of low tax effect; substantial questions left open.
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 : 02.12.2020
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Tax Case Appeal No.555 of 2018
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chennai-34. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.Indowind Energy Ltd.,
Chennai-34. ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 25.10.2016 made in ITA.No.936/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07,1.against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6 121, Mahatma Gandhi Raod, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 dt.12.02.15 in ITA.No.143/CIT(A)6/2008-09. Assessment year 2006-07.2.against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 dt 23.01.15 in ITA.No/234/CIT(A)6/2014-15 Assessment year 2008-2009. 3.against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-11(3), Room No.513, 5th floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34, PAN/GIR No.AAACI1806M, Assessment year 2008-09 dt.28/03/2014. 4.against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle 11(3), 121, N.H.Road, Chennai-34 dt.30/12/2008 in PAN/GIR No.AAACI1806M, Assessment year 2006-2007.
For Appellant :Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC For Respondent:Mr.A.S.Sriraman
Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J
We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and
Page numbers
Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent – assessee.
“i. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the loss was due to non recoverability of advances made to M/s.Cicon Environment and not for any expenditure incurred by the assessee and therefore, the assessee deserved deduction for the entire loss of Rs.1,02,00,000/- as business loss allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act ? ii. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the advances made to M/s.Cicon Environment eligible to be claimed as business loss when the proposed project did not materialize and the question of claiming the expenses from the commissioning of the project does not arise ? And
iii. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in treating the compensation paid of Rs.65 lakhs to its associate company M/s.Indonet Global Ltd., for the delay in commissioning the project to be allowed as deduction as per Section 37 of the Act? ”
Page numbers
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
RS
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 'B' Bench.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle-II(3), Room No.513,
5 th Floor, Wanapathy Block,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
4.The Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle-11(3),
121, N.H.Road, Chennai-34.
TCA.No.555 of 2018
SR II(CO)
CB(19/01/2021)
Page numbers
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chennai-34
M/s. Indowind Energy Ltd.
T.S. Sivagnanam
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
