Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd on 8 January, 2021
TCA.No.500 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.500 of 2020
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd.,
No.73,South India House,
Armenian Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
PAN: AAKCS5773M ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 19.07.2019 made in ITA.No.638/Chny/2019 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment year
2011-12.
For Appellant: Mr.J.Narayanasamy
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.500 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated
19.07.2019 made in ITA.No.638/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the
assessment year 2011-12.
2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial question of law
for consideration:
“Whether on facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that
no disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A by
applying the formula u/r 8D can be made as
computed by the assessing officer when the
assessee had made an huge investment and had
received exempted income?”
3. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,
learned counsel on behalf of the respondent/assessee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.500 of 2020
4. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the
Tribunal was right in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals), who had allowed the assessee's appeal holding that
the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be restricted
to the extent of exempt income earned. The Tribunal also noted the decision
of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investments Ltd., vs CIT
[372 ITR 694(Del)]. We find that there is no error in the order passed by the
Tribunal and that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in
this appeal.
5. In the light of the legal position settled out in the case of Joint
Investments Ltd., vs CIT [372 ITR 694(Del)], the present Tax Case Appeal
is dismissed and no substantial question of law is raised for consideration.
No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
08.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.500 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'C' Bench.
2. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
TCA.No.500 of 2020
08.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
