Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S.Hinduja Foundries Ltd on 6 July, 2021
T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle – 2(2),
Chennai - 34 ... Appellant
in all appeals
Vs.
M/s.Hinduja Foundries Ltd.,
(Merged with M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd.,)
Kathivakkam High Road, Ennore,
Chennai – 600 057. ... Respondent
in all appeals
Tax Case Appeals in T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021 preferred
under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “C” Bench, dated
02.05.2018 in I.T.A.Nos.2690/Mds/2017 and 2692/Mds/2017,
respectively for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2012-13 respectively.
Page 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
in all appeals
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
in all appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for
M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the
respondent/assessee.
2.The above appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), are directed against the
order dated 02.05.2018 made in I.T.A.Nos.2690/Mds/2017 and
2692/Mds/2017, on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras, “C” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Years
2008-09 and 2012-13 respectively.
Page 2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021
3.The appellant/Revenue has raised the following common
substantial questions of law in the above appeals :
“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law the ITAT was right in holding additional
depreciation can be allowed in the next year in case the
same cannot be allowed in the earlier year?
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law the ITAT was right in ignoring the second
provision of section 32(1) when there are no provisions in
the statute to carry forward the balance additional
depreciation to the following years?
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law the ITAT was right in deleting the addition
made u/s 14A of the Act by holding that there cannot be
any disallowance u/s 14A when there is no exempted
income, when the provisions of the said section as well as
Rule 8D does not provide for any such exception?
4.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law the ITAT was correct in not appreciating
the CBDT circular No. 5/2014 wherein it is clarified that,
Page 3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021
disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D has to be made even if the
tax payer in a particular year not earned any exempt
income?
5.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law the ITAT was right in law in deleting the
disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act for the
A.Y. 2012-13 for the purpose of computing book profits
u/s 115JB of the Act?
6.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law the ITAT was right in ignoring the
Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB(2) of the Act where
such disallowances made are to be increased for the
purpose of computing book profit?
7.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law the ITAT was correct and justified in
holding that the belated remittance of employees
contribution to PF&ESI as per relevant Act, but before the
due date of filing of the IT return in accordance with IT
Act, which is in contravention of provisions of
Sec.36(1)(va) of the IT Act.”
Page 4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021
4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits
that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the
Low Tax Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued
by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary
limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been
increased to Rs.1 crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in these
cases is less than the threshold limit.
5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax Case Appeals
are dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The
substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax
effect in these cases is above the threshold limit fixed in the said
Circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this
Court to restore the above appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No
costs.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
06.07.2021
mkn (2/2)
Page 5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “C” Bench.
Page 6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
T.C.A.Nos.340 and 341 of 2021
06.07.2021
(2/2)
Page 7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
