Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Southern Petrochemical ... on 18 January, 2021
TCA.No.37 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.01.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.37 of 2021
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.Southern Petrochemical Industries
Corporation Limited, SPIC House,
88, Mount Road, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
PAN: AAACS4668K ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 07.06.2019 made in ITA.No.303/Chny/2019 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment year
2013-14.
For Appellant: Mr.J.Narayanasamy
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.37 of 2021
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
07.06.2019 made in ITA.No.303/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the
assessment year 2013-14.
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.37 of 2021
4. We need not labour much to decide the substantial question of law
raised in this appeal, as we had decided identical question in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s.Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd. in
T.C.A.No.500 of 2020 dated 08.01.2021. In the said appeal, the Tribunal
had placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of
Joint Investments Ltd., vs CIT [372 ITR 694(Del)] and dismissed the
appeal filed by the Revenue. As against the said order passed by the
Tribunal, the Revenue was on appeal before us in T.C.A.No.500 of 2020 and
we have dismissed the same by judgment dated 08.01.2021, by assigning
the following reasons:
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.37 of 2021
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."
5. In the result, the present Tax Case Appeal is dismissed and the
substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
18.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
hvk
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'C' Bench.
2. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.37 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
TCA.No.37 of 2021
18.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
