Madras High Court
M/S.The Mylapore Club vs The Deputy Commissioner Of on 9 March, 2021
TCA.Nos.17 to 22 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.3.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal Nos.17 to 22 of 2018
and CMP.Nos.191 to 195 of 2018
M/s.The Mylapore Club,
Chennai-4 ...Appellant
Vs
The Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Business Circle II,
Chennai-34 new jurisdiction at
the Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Non Corporate
Circle-2, Chennai-34. ...Respondent
APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the common order dated 31.3.2017 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.Nos.2887 to 2892/
Mds/2016 respectively for the assessment years from 2007-08 to
2012-13.
For Appellant: Mr.V.S.Jayakumar
For Respondent: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC &
Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, SSC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.17 to 22 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J)
These appeals have been filed by the assessee under Section
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging
the common order dated 31.3.2017 made in I.T.A.Nos.2887 to 2892/
Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench,
Chennai (for short, the Tribunal) respectively for the assessment years
from 2007-08 to 2012-13.
2. The assessee has filed these appeals by raising the following
substantial questions of law :
“1. Whether the Tribunal was right in
holding that the reassessment made under
Section 147 is valid in law ?
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law
in holding that the interest income admitted by
the appellant is liable to tax and that the
principle of mutuality is not applicable on that
income ? And
3. Whether the Tribunal was right in
holding that the expenditure claimed by the
appellant against the said interest income is
not allowable?”
3. We have heard Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.17 to 22 of 2018
4. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the
assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking in the respective
cases under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed in
Form No.3 respectively on 02.3.2021 in TCA.Nos.17 to 19 of 2018 and
on 03.3.2021 in TCA.Nos.20 to 22 of 2018.
5. In the light of the subsequent event, the assessee is given
liberty to restore these appeals in the event the ultimate decision
taken in the respective cases 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 petition to be filed for condonation of delay in
restoration of the appeals and on such request made by the assessee
by filing miscellaneous petitions for restoration, the Registry shall place
such petitions before the appropriate Division Bench for orders.
6. The tax case appeals stand disposed of with the
aforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial questions of law
raised are left open. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are
closed.
RS 09.3.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.17 to 22 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
RS
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 2,
Chennai-34
TCA.Nos.Nos.17 to 22 of 2018
& CMP.Nos.191 to 195 of 2018
09.3.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
