Dismissed

M/S Mctm Global v. the Asst Commissioner

Madras HC16 Aug 2021TC/1062/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act was dismissed because the appellant had already availed benefits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The court left the substantial questions of law open with liberty to restore the appeal if the declaration under the Act is unfavorable.

What did the court decide?

The Tax Case Appeal is dismissed; the Department shall process the application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020; liberty granted to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision is unfavo

M/S Mctm Global Vs the Asst Commissioner — Income Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Tax Case Appeal No.1062 of 2008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.08.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶8

Tax Case Appeal No.1062 of 2008
M/s.M.Ct.M. Global Investments
Private Ltd.,
761, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Appellant
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle – IV(1),
121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent

¶9

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench, dated 19.12.2007 passed in I.T.A.No.1397/Mds/2006.

¶10

Page 1/6

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

Tax Case Appeal No.1062 of 2008

¶13

For Appellant : Ms.Sri Niranjani Srinivasan for M/s.G.Baskar For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthick Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.S.Rajesh Standing Counsel J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. ) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1397/Mds/2006 for the assessment year 2002-03. The appeal has been admitted on 19.08.2008 on the following substantial questions of law :

¶14

“1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income derived by the appellant in Malaysia is liable to be assessed in India ?

¶15

Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶16

Tax Case Appeal No.1062 of 2008

¶17

2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the appellant's claim that the income derived in Malaysia constitutes “business income” and is hence not liable to tax in India?

¶18

3.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the loss relating to the investments is a capital loss and not business loss?”

¶19

We have heard Ms.Sri Niranjani Srinivasan, learned counsel

¶20

appearing for the appellant/ assessee and Mr.R.Karthick Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel

¶21

for the respondent/Revenue.

¶22

It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se

¶23

Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax

¶24

Page 3/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶26

Tax Case Appeal No.1062 of 2008

¶27

and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President on 17^th March 2020 and

¶28

published in the Gazette of India on 17^th March 2020.

¶29

We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee

¶30

that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 31.01.2021.

¶31

In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending. At the same time, the interest of the assessee in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour of the assessee, is to be safeguarded. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal is

¶32

dismissed on the ground that the assessee has already been issued with Form-3 and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore the appeal

¶33

in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the

¶34

assessee under Section 4 of the said Act, is not in favour of the assessee. If

¶35

Page 4/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶37

Tax Case Appeal No.1062 of 2008

¶38

such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a

¶39

Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such petition

¶40

before the Division Bench for orders.

¶41

With this observation, these Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed with
the aforementioned liberty, and consequently, the Substantial Questions of
Law are left open. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
16.08.2021
(2/3)
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To

¶42

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench

¶43

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – IV(1), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶45

Page 5/6

¶46

Tax Case Appeal No.1062 of 2008

¶47

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

¶48

mkn

¶49

Tax Case Appeal No.1062 of 2008

¶50

16.08.2021 (2/3)

¶51

Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

M/S Mctm Global v. the Asst Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mctm Global v. the Asst Commissioner

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

Angel Christian Charitable Vs The Deputy Director

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Tweezerman (India)Pvt Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Vs M/S. Indian Overseas Bank

M/S.M.Ct.M.Global Investments Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sundaram Non Conventional Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Tamil Nadu Road Vs the Assistant Commissioner