Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of vs M/S.Kgs Aranmula International on 8 March, 2021
TCA.No.192 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.192 of 2021
Principal Commissioner of
Income Tax,
Corporate Ward-3(4),
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.KGS Aranmula International
Airport Ltd., No.43, Besant Avenue Road,
Adyar, Chennai - 20. ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 17.01.2018 made in ITA.No.105/Mds/2017 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment year
2012-13.
For Appellant: Mr.R.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC
For Respondent: Mr.G.Baskar
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
TCA.No.192 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
This appeal, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the order
dated 17.01.2018 made in ITA.No.105/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the
assessment year 2012-13.
2. The appellant-Revenue has raised the following substantial
questions of law for consideration:
"1. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally
justified in deleting the addition of
Rs.6,36,63,979/- made by the Assessing Officer in
the hands of the assessee company u/s 2(22)(e) of
the IT Act? and
2. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally
correct in following the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Ankitech when
the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the
similar issue in the case of M/s.National Travel
Services in CA Nos.2068-2071 of 2012 dated
18.01.2018 held that Ankitech's case wrongly
decided in stating that no change was made by
introducing the deeming fiction in so far as the
expression "shareholder" is concerned and
requires to be reconsidered?"
http://www.judis.nic.in
TCA.No.192 of 2021
3. We have heard Mr.R.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior
Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.G.Baskar, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. It is not disputed before us that identical substantial questions
of law have been answered against the Revenue in the case of The
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Enmas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in
TCA.No.895 of 2019 dated 08.10.2020. The operative portion of the
judgment reads as follows:
"3. It is not disputed before us that the
Substantial Questions of Law raised by the Revenue in
the instant case was considered by this Court earlier in
the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai Vs. M/s.T.Abdul Wahid & Co., in
T.C.A.Nos.512 & 513 of 2018 dated 21.09.2020. The
said judgment was followed in the case of The
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs.
M/s.Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions India
Ltd., in T.C.A.No.307 of 2019 dated 29.09.2020.
http://www.judis.nic.in
TCA.No.192 of 2021
4. It would be useful to refer to the operative
portion of the judgment in the case of The
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs.
M/s.Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions India
Ltd., wherein they had followed the decision in The
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s
T.Abdul Wahid & Co., and the operative portion of the
judgment reads as follows:
“8. We had an occasion to consider an
identical substantial question of law in the case of
CIT Vs. M/s.T.Abdul Wahid & Co. [TCA.Nos.512
& 513 of 2018 dated 21.9.2020]. As contended
before us in this appeal, an argument was made
by Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel in the said decision that loans or
advances had to be treated as dividend to the
extent of accumulated profits and loan or
advances may be given directly to the shareholder
or it may be given for the benefit of the
shareholder or on behalf of the shareholder.
Therefore, it was contended that the Assessing
Officer was right in treating the loan as deemed
dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
9. In the said decision, in support of his
contentions, the learned Senior Standing Counsel
referred to the decisions in the cases of
(i) Gopal & Sons (HUF) Vs. CIT [reported
in (2017) 145 DR 0289 (SC)];
(ii) Miss.P.Sarada Vs. CIT [reported in
[1998] 229 ITR 444 (SC)];
(iii) CIT Vs. National Travel Services
[reported in (2012) 347 ITR 0305]; and
http://www.judis.nic.in
TCA.No.192 of 2021
(iv) National Travel Services Vs. CIT,
[reported in (2018) 401 ITR 0154 (SC)], in
which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court doubted the
correctness of the decision in the case of CIT Vs.
Ankitech Pvt. Lt. [reported in (2012) 340 ITR
0014]."
5. Thus, following the above decision, the Tax
Case Appeal filed by the Revenue has to be necessarily
rejected. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal is
dismissed and the Substantial Questions of Law are
answered against the Revenue. No costs."
5. Thus, by following the above decision, this Tax Case Appeal is
dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the
Revenue. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
08.03.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
hvk
http://www.judis.nic.in
TCA.No.192 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
'B' Bench, Chennai.
2. ThePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Ward-3(4),
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.
TCA.No.192 of 2021
08.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
