Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Neyveli Lignite Corporation ... on 17 April, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2016
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
Neyveli – 607 801. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
"A" Bench, dated 26.06.2015 passed in I.T.A.No.374/Mds/2004.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mrs.G.Janane
for M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/5
Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order
dated 26.06.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
"A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.374/Mds/2004 for the
assessment year 2001-02. The above appeal has been admitted on
08.03.2016 on the following Substantial Questions of Law:
"1.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the
revamping the urea plant is allowable expenditure as
current repairs, even though the said expenditure was
incurred after the life span of the plant and machinery,
which does not amount to preservation of an already
existing machinery?
2.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the
expenditure incurred in revamping the urea plant is
allowable as revenue expenditure, especially when the
assessee had capitalized the same in its books of account?
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/5
Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2016
3.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was justified in relying on the
amendment to Section 80IA made by Finance Act, 1999,
while allowing 100% deduction, even though the assessee
had commenced its operation in the year 1994-95, when
the position of law was different? and
4.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by applying
the amended provisions of law by extending the benefit
retrospectively, which goes against the principle of strict
interpretation of machinery provisions?”
2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mrs.G.Janane for M/s.Lakshmi
Kumaran, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
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
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/5
Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2016
President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on
17th March 2020.
4.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the
assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the
respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–3 on
09.03.2021.
5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3,
nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal. Recording the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee, the
Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
17.04.2021
(1/2)
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/5
Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2016
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal No.129 of 2016
17.04.2021
(1/2)
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/5
