Madras High Court
M/S.M.Ct.M.Global Investments ... vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income ... on 12 July, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2017
M/s.M.Ct.M.Global Investments Private Limited
761, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Appellant
Vs.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle IV(1),
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"A" Bench, dated 21.10.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1936/Mds/2012.
For Appellant : Ms.Sri Niranjani Srinivasan
for M/s.G.Baskar
For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/7
Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order
dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1936/Mds/2012 for
the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant/assessee has raised the
following substantial questions of law in the above appeal:
“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in
holding that the income earned by Malaysian Branch of the
company is taxable in India and not taxable in Malaysia?
2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law
in holding that expenditure incurred by Malaysian Branch
cannot be treated as allowable expenditure even if income
from Malaysian Branch was treated as taxable income in
India?
3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, expenditure incurred for earning an income has
to be allowed either under the head "business" or under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/7
Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2017
the head "other sources" according to the treatment of the
income under the head "business" or under the head "other
sources" in accordance with section 37 or under section 56
of Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively?
4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law
in holding that the income by way of interest had to be
classified as "income from other sources and not "income
from business", even if assessee is the nonbanking
financial company and the interest income earned in the
course of its business activity?
5.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in
holding that the dividend income is liable to be taxed under
the head "income from Other Sources" and not under the
head "income from business"?
6.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in
holding that the income/loss on purchase and sale of stock-
in-trade is liable to be taxed under the head "capital
gains".
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/7
Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2017
7.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in
rejecting the claim of the Appellant that the income derived
in Malaysia constitutes business income, even when the
Appellant is systematically and continuously carrying on
business of purchase/sale of investments?”
2. We have heard Ms.Sri Niranjani Srinivasan, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/ assessee and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.
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
President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on
17th March 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/7
Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2017
4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on
01.02.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the appeal.
5. In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the
benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the
appeal pending. At the same time, the interest of the assessee in the event
the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour
of the assessee, is to be safeguarded. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal
stands dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that the assessee has
already been issued with Form-3 and the Department shall process the
application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and
communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the
assessee is given liberty to restore the appeal in the event the ultimate
decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the assessee under
Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer
is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon
any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the
appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/7
Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2017
Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such
petition before the Division Bench for orders.
6. With this observation, these Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed
as withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty, and consequently, the
Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
12.07.2021
(3/3)
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench
2.The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle IV(1),
Chennai – 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/7
Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2017
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2017
12.07.2021
(3/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/7
