Madras High Court
M/S.Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 29 July, 2021
Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
M/s.Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd.,
No.17, Kamaraj Salai,
Pondicherry – 605 011. ... Appellant
in all appeals
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle – 1,
Pondicherry. ... Respondent
in all appeals
Tax Case Appeals in Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order
of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, dated
20.11.2015 passed in I.T.A.Nos.1578/Mds/2014 and 1579/Mds/2014
respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/7
Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
For Appellant : Ms.Sri Niranjani Srinivasan
for Mr.Philip George
in all appeals
For Respondent : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy
Senior Standing Counsel
in all appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
The above appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), are directed against the
order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in
I.T.A.Nos.1578/Mds/2014 and 1579/Mds/2014 for the assessment years
2007-08 and 2010-11 respectively. The appellant/assessee has raised the
following substantial questions of law in the above appeals:
“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in
upholding the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 in respect of reimbursement of expenditure,
being Operational support cost to supporting
manufacturers?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/7
Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding
that the composite payment which includes Operational
support cost and Royalty should be treated as Royalty and
mandates that the deduction of Tax at Source should have
been made on the entire payment?
3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding
that deduction of Tax at Source should have been made on
the entire composite payment consisting of Operational
support cost and Royalty?
4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, as per the terms of tie-up agreement,
reimbursement of expenditure being Operational support
cost to supporting manufacturers, falls outside the purview
of Section 30 to 38 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and provisions
of deduction of Tax at source are not applicable to warrant
disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961?”
2. We have heard Ms.Sri Niranjani Srinivasan for Mr.Philip
George, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ assessee and
Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent/Revenue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/7
Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
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.
4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on
20.01.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the above appeals.
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
these appeals 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/7
Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
in favour of the assessee, is to be safeguarded. Accordingly, the Tax
Case Appeals stand 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 these appeals 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
these appeals and on such request made by the assessee by filing a
Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such
petition before the Division Bench for orders.
6. With this observation, these Tax Case Appeals stand 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.]
mkn 29.07.2021
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/7
Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle – 1,
Pondicherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/7
Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal Nos.678 and 679 of 2016
29.07.2021
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/7
