Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Redington India Ltd on 3 August, 2021
T.C.A.No.426 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A. No.426 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Redington India Ltd.,
95, Mount Road, SPL Guindy House,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras,
“D” Bench, dated 18.10.2016 in I.T.A.No.1155/Mds/2016, Assessment Year
2011-12.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.426 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for brevity), is directed against the order, dated
18.10.2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D"
Bench, in I.T.A.Nos.1155/Mds/2016, for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
2.The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law
for consideration.
“1.Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse by
allowing the claim of trademark, license fee paid by the
Assessee to its Associate Enterprise when the facts remains
that the Associate Enterprise is not the registered owner of the
trademarked?
2.Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering the
fact that the Assessee had been using the trademark from 1993
whereas the Associate Enterprise was formed only in the year
2005?
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.426 of 2021
3.Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal that
the investment made in the subsidiary company should be
excluded while calculating disallowance under Rule 8D(2)
read with Sec.14A especially when no such exception is
provided under the Statute?
4.Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Limited
which clearly held that Sec.14A disallowance is to be made on
investment made in the subsidiary company?”
3.We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/assessee.
4.We need not labour much to take a decision or answer the substantial
questions of law framed for consideration on account of the following
events:
The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 18.10.2016, disposed of
two appeals, viz., I.T.A.No.1155/Mds/2016 (impugned in this appeal) filed
by the respondent/assessee and I.T.A.No.1145/Mds/2016 filed by the
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.426 of 2021
Revenue. As against the order in I.T.A.No.1145/Mds/2016, the Revenue
had filed an appeal before this Court in T.C.A.No.323 of 2021, which was
disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.06.2021 on the ground
that the assessee has availed the benefit of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. To be
noted that the assessee has paid the entire tax and Form-3 was filed under the
said Act on 15.04.2021, which has been received by the Department. The
present appeal by the Revenue is against the order, dated 18.10.2016, in
I.T.A.No.1155/Mds/2016, which was an appeal filed by the assessee and
allowed by the Tribunal and against which, the Revenue are before us.
5.Since the assessee has already filed Form-3 declaration and paid the
entire tax, the appellant Department/competent authority is directed to
proceed to consider the Form-3 declaration in terms of the provisions of the
Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020), read with Direct
Tax Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020. We make the position clear that the
assessee should not be put in a worse off position because we have
entertained this appeal after condoning the delay. We have done so because
the assessee should be able to get comprehensive relief and the competent
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.426 of 2021
authority under the Act should be able to process the Form-3 declaration
filed by the assessee.
6.With these observations, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of
and the substantial questions of law are left open for consideration. No
costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
03.08.2021
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai, “D” Bench.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.426 of 2021
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal No.426 of 2021
03.08.2021
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
