This tax case appeal challenges the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's remand order regarding deduction for gratuity fund provision. Counsel submitted the issue was subsequently resolved by a coordinate bench, leaving no question for further adjudication.
Tax case appeal disposed of, substantial question of law 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 : 07.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
TCA.NO.501 OF 2014
M/s Tyco Sanmar Ltd., No.9, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 086.
... Appellant/Respondent
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Company Circle - III (2), Chennai 600 034.
... Respondent/Appellant
Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “B” Bench, dated 13.03.2014 in I.TA.No.1255/Mds/2013 Assessment Year 2006–2007, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Trichy dated 01.02.2013 made in ITA.No.316/09-10 PAN No.AAACT 7409 H Assessment Year 2006-07, and against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III(2), Chennai dated 29.12.2009 PAN No.AAACT 7409 H for the Assessment Year 2006 – 07.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This is an appeal filed by the assessee, challenging the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, in I.TA.No.1255/Mds/2013, relating
to the assessment year 2006-07. The operative portion of the Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference:
"In view thereof, we also deem it proper to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing officer who shall verify as to whether actual payment has been effected either in relevant previous year or before due date of filing of 'return'. Needless to say, he shall do so after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee".
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision of Rs.24,44,329/- made by the assessee towards the approved gratuity fund with LIC of India and approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax is not an allowable deduction under section 40 (A)(7)(b) of the Act?"
"4. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A).
Thus, according to the learned counsel, nothing survives for further adjudication in this appeal.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
av
To
+1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate, S.R.No.33343
TCA.No.501 of 2014
RLD(CO) RLP(27/06/2022)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the matter remains available for adjudication in this appeal following the remand order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Tyco Sanmar Ltd.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Company Circle - III (2), Chennai
R.Mahadevan
Mohammed Shaffiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
