Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Teledata Informatics Ltd.

Madras HC4 Nov 2024TCA/1010/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT order, holding that the substantial question of law regarding the computation of turnover and profit for deductions under Sections 80HHC and 10A of the Income Tax Act was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's ratio in Commissioner of Income Tax v Lakshmi Machine Works, answered in favour of the assessee.

What the court decided

AI extract

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Teledata Informatics Ltd. — Income Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:3810

¶2

T.C.A.No.1010 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 04.11.2024

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

T.C.A.No.1010 of 2009

¶8

Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.

¶9

.. Appellant

¶10

¶11

M/s.Teledata Informatics Limited 2AB, Gee Gee Emerald, 151, Village Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai - 600 034.

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'C' Bench dated 31.03.2009 in ITA No. 1662/Mds/2008.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Not ready notice regarding.

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

¶17

The substantial question of law that have been admitted in this case

¶18

are as follows:-

¶19

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of export proceeds not realised within the statutory time limit, should be excluded from the turnover as well as the profit?"

¶20

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue for Assessment Year

¶21

(AY) 2004 - 05. Notice has not been served on the assessee / respondent.

¶22

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

¶23

1/3

¶24

T.C.A.No.1010 of 2009

¶25

However, in view of the fact that the substantial question of law is covered in favour of the assessee and there would be no prejudice caused to the assessee / respondent by virtue of TCA being disposed without reference to it, we proceed to pass the following order.

¶26

The issue that arises is squarely covered by a ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Lakshmi Machine Works (290 ITR 667). The question relates to parity to be maintained between the numerator and the denominator in the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC, which question has been answered in favour of the assessee to say that such parity should be maintained.

¶27

The ratio of the aforesaid judgment would be applicable on all

¶28

fours even in the context of deduction under Section 10A of the Act.

¶29

In this regard, we draw support from a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v Abad Fisheries (258 ITR 661), which proceeds along identical lines.

¶30

Hence the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondent / assessee and against the Revenue. This Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶31

[A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J] 04.11.2024

¶32

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶33

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

¶34

2/3

¶35

T.C.A.No.1010 of 2009

¶36

DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J. and G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J.