Disposed

India Euipment Leasing Ltd. v. the Acit

Madras HC8 Jan 2021TC/1395/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Income Tax Appeal against the ITAT was disposed of without deciding the substantial questions of law. The Court noted the assessee had filed a declaration under Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, rendering the appeal unnecessary. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the settlement outcome is unfavorable.

What did the court decide?

Disposed on the ground that the assessee has filed a declaration under Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Liberty granted to restore the appeal if the settlement decision is again

India Euipment Leasing Ltd. Vs the Acit — Income Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Tax Case No.1395 of 2008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.01.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

Tax Case Appeal No.1395 of 2008
M/s. India Equipment Leasing Ltd.,
(Merged with Sundaram Finance Limited)
21, Patullos Road, Chennai. ... Appellant
v.
The ACIT,
Co.Cir.VI(4),
Chennai. ... Respondent

¶7

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,

¶8

1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 28.09.2007 passed in I.T.A.No.802/Mds/2004.

¶9

Page 1/6

¶10

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

¶11

Tax Case No.1395 of 2008

¶12

For Appellant : Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan for Mr. G. Baskar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr. A. Venkataraman Standing Counsel

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

(Delivered by T.V. THAMILSELVI, J)

¶16

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 28.09.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.802/Mds/2004. for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration:

¶17

" (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

¶18

of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that lease transactions entered into by the appellant with M/s Bellary Steels and Alloys Ltd. is not genuine and hence not entitled to depreciation?

¶19

Page 2/6

¶20

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

¶21

Tax Case No.1395 of 2008

¶22

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the evidences produced by the appellant that would establish the lease transactions entered into by the appellant are genuine and hence entitled to depreciation?

¶23

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of

¶24

the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cost of software purchased by the appellant and given it on lease is capital in nature and hence not allowable as deduction ?"

¶25

2.. We have heard Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan, learned counsel for the

¶26

appellant/assessee and Mr. A.Venkataraman, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.

¶27

It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial

¶28

Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of

¶29

disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The

¶30

Page 3/6

¶31

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

¶32

Tax Case No.1395 of 2008

¶33

Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President on 17^th March

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

that the assessee has already filed the declaration on 23.03.2020 under

¶37

Section 4 of the Act.

¶38

In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the

¶39

benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this

¶40

appeal pending. At the same time, safeguarding the interest of the assessee

¶41

in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the assessee has already filed a declaration

¶42

and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee

¶43

at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration

¶44

filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the

¶45

Page 4/6

¶46

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

¶47

Tax Case No.1395 of 2008

¶48

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer

¶49

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 Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place

¶50

such petition before the Division Bench for orders.

¶51

With this observation, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of
with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the Substantial
Questions of Law are left open. No costs.
(M.D.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
08.01.2021
2/2
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
The ACIT,
Co.Cir.VI(4),
Chennai.

¶52

Page 5/6

¶53

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

¶54

Tax Case No.1395 of 2008

¶55

M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶56

¶57

Tax Case Appeal No.1395 of 2008
08.01.2021
2/2

¶58

Page 6/6

¶59

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

India Euipment Leasing Ltd. v. the Acit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

India Euipment Leasing Ltd. v. the Acit

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 M/S Indus Finance Limited

M/S.Harvey Heart Hospitals Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shri T.M.Srinivasan Vs the Joint Commissioner of

G. Muralidharan Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt.Ritha Sabapathy

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri R.Anandakumar