Madras High Court
M/S. Ttk Healthcare Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 23 June, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.412 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Tax Case Appeal No.412 of 2011
M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited,
6, Cathedral Road,
Chennai - 600 086. ... Appellant
v.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle – III (4),
Chennai. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"C" Bench, dated 05.05.2011 passed in I.T.A.No.1389/Mds/2009.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkat Narayanan
For Respondent : Mrs.V.Pushpa
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/5
Tax Case Appeal No.412 of 2011
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 05.05.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1389/Mds/2009 for
the assessment year 2002-2003.
2. The appeal was admitted on 26.09.2011 on the following
substantial questions of law:-
" 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to set off
carry forward loss/unabsorbed depreciation of the
amalgamating company in terms of provisions of Section
72A read with Rule 9C?
2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
holding that the Company has failed to attain the requisite
50% production in the first year of amalgamation and has
failed to comply with the provisions of Section 72A read
with Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
Tax Case Appeal No.412 of 2011
3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
holding that the unabsorbed depreciation was not liable to
be added to WDV since the assessee has dismantled
Machines when the facts are entirely different for the
assessment year under consideration?"
3. We have heard Mr.R. Venkat Narayanan, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned counsel for the
respondent/Revenue.
4. 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 3/5
Tax Case Appeal No.412 of 2011
5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on
03.05.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the appeal.
6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
23.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mtl
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle – III (4),
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
Tax Case Appeal No.412 of 2011
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R.HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
Tax Case Appeal No.412 of 2011
23.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
