Madras High Court
M/S. Ttk Healthcare Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 23 June, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017
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.586 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.14636 of 2017
M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited,
6, Cathedral Road,
Chennai - 600 086.
PAN : AABCT3312J ... Appellant
v.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle – 3 (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
"C" Bench, dated 25.11.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1642/Mds/2016.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkat Narayanan
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Premalatha
for Mr.M.Swaminathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/5
Tax Case Appeal No.586 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 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1642/Mds/2016 for
the assessment year 2011-2012.
2. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of
law in the above appeal:-
" 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not adjudicating
whether the disallowance under Section 37, by relying on
CBDT Circular which could not have retrospective effect,
could be made by an order under Section 154 of the Act?
2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in law in considering the
CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 which could not have
retrospective effect?"
3. We have heard Mr.R. Venkat Narayanan, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mrs.S.Premalatha for Mr.M.Swaminathan,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017
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.
5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on
10.06.2021 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.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
mtl 23.06.2021
Index : Yes/No (1/2)
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/5
Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle – 3 (1),
Chennai - 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R.HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017
23.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
