Madras High Court
M/S.Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 21 April, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.104 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Tax Case Appeal No.104 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.2020 of 2017
M/s.Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd.,
9, Manali Express Road,
Manali,
Chennai – 600 068. ... Appellant
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Taxpayer Unit,
Chennai – 600 101. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"C" Bench, dated 22.01.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.904/Mds/2011,
Assessment Year 2001-02.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/5
Tax Case Appeal No.104 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, 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 22.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.904/Mds/2011 for the
assessment year 2001-02. The appellant/assessee has raised the following
Substantial Questions of Law in the above appeal:
"1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that
reassessment proceedings is valid without considering the
findings given by the CIR (Appeals)?
2.Whether on facts and circumstances of the case
and in law, an assessment can be reopened on the basis of
'borrowed satisfaction' in the absence of independent
belief by the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the
assessee?
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Income Tax authorities at Bombay who allowed
deduction of revenue expenditure in the hands of payer i.e.
CIBA India Ltd., can direct the Assessing Officer having
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
Tax Case Appeal No.104 of 2017
jurisdiction over Assessee to tax the receipt as income?
4.Whether the reopening of assessment to tax the
compensation received as revenue receipt would not
amount to change of opinion when there is a full
disclosure in the return of income?”
2. We have heard Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya
Aiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and
Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent/Revenue.
3. 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 Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for
resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the
President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on
17th March 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/5
Tax Case Appeal No.104 of 2017
4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on
11.01.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the appeal.
5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.D., J.] [K.R., J.]
21.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Taxpayer Unit,
Chennai – 600 101.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
Tax Case Appeal No.104 of 2017
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal No.104 of 2017
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
