Madras High Court
T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income - Tax on 4 April, 2022
TC(A).No.1133 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
TC(A).No.1133 of 2007
T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & sons Ltd.,
7-B, West Veli Street, Madurai. ... Appellant
Vs
The Commissioner of Income - Tax,
Madurai. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai,
dated 24.11.2006 in I.T.A.No.857/Mds/2003.
For Appellant : Mr.N.V.Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
Mrs.V.Pushpa,
Junior Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
TC(A).No.1133 of 2007
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / assessee,
challenging the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.857/Mds/2003, relating to the
assessment year 1998-1999.
2.By order dated 14.08.2007, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the
case, the Income Tax appellate Tribunal is justified in law in
affirming the Revision Order of the CIT under Section 263 of
the Income Tax Act about the direction given to the Assessing
Officer to disallow interest on borrowings assumed to have
been used for making investment in shares by applying section
14A of the Income Tax Act 1961, without any finding of nexus
between the deposits received by the assessee and the
investment in shares by the CIT and whether the order of the
Tribunal is sustainable in law?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal is justified in law in omitting to deal with the
material evidence placed by the assessee in the form of Paper
Book and the arguments of the assessee supported by written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TC(A).No.1133 of 2007
submissions and in not following its own earlier order in the
assessee's own case on the question of disallowance of interest
on deposits received by the assessee and without itself giving
any finding that any of the deposits have been used for
investment in shares and in affirming the order of the CIT
under Section 263 of the Act?
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal is justified in law in neglecting material
evidence and in upholding the order of the CIT and in holding
that the assessee is liable to short term capital gains on the
allotment of shares of M/s.Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., and
whether in Tribunal's assumption that the assessee has
transferred the tradable warrants and got equity shares of
M/s.Sundaram Brake Linings and the difference between the
price paid by the assessee and the market price is liable for
capital gains is supported by any material evidence and whether
the Tribunal is correct in holding that the decision of the
Supreme Court in Gace Collis (248 ITR 323 (SC)) is applicable
to the facts of the case?
(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal is justified in law in neglecting material
evidence and in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.59,07,500/-
being the extra expenditure incurred by the assessee, due to
variation in exchange rate of foreign currency at the time of
repayment of foreign currency loan taken for working capital of
the assessee, and whether the Tribunal is justified in assuming
that there is a specific finding by the CIT that the assessee has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TC(A).No.1133 of 2007
acquired funds from banks for making investments in shares
and other sister concerns and whether it is based on any
material evidence?
(v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal is justified in law in affirming the order of
the CIT for holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation
at 25% only as against 100% claimed and allowed by the
Assessing Officer on UPS and Voltage Stabilizers?
(vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal is justified in law in affirming the order of
the CIT and in holding that the interest received by the assessee
on deposits made by the assessee with Banks is assessable
under other sources and not under business income?
(vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal is justified in law in rejecting material
evidence in the form of Lease Deeds and in sustaining the order
of the CIT and in holding that the lease rents received by the
assessee by letting out three vacant lands, one well and one
commercial property is assessable as income from property and
not as miscellaneous income declared by the assessee and
whether the order is sustainable in law?
3.The learned counsel for the appellant / assessee submitted that during
the pendency of this tax case appeal, the assessee has filed the requisite Forms
1 and 2 under Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which
were accepted and Form 3 was issued to them on 05.03.2021 by the Income
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TC(A).No.1133 of 2007
Tax Department. Therefore, the learned counsel sought permission of this
court to withdraw this appeal and has also filed a memo to that effect.
4.Recording the submissions and the memo so filed on the side of the
appellant, this tax case appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.)
04.04.2022
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
av
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
“C” Bench, Chennai,
2. The Commissioner of Income - Tax,
Madurai.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle - I, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TC(A).No.1133 of 2007
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
av
TC(A).No.1133 of 2007
04.04.2022
(1/4)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
