Madras High Court
T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income - Tax on 4 April, 2022
TCA.No.249 of 2014
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
TCA.No.249 of 2014
T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & sons Ltd.,
7-B, West Veli Street, Madurai - 625 001.
PAN AABCT0159K ... 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 28.08.2013 in I.T.A.No.833/Mds/2012.
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
1/4
TCA.No.249 of 2014
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 28.08.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.833/Mds/2012, relating to the
assessment year 2005-2006.
2.By order dated 24.03.2015, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the disallowane
under Section 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06
to 2008-09 to the extent of 50% of the relief granted by the CIT
(Appeals)?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
and having regard to section 14A of the Act and especially in
view of its findings that the lower authorities have nowhere
recorded (dis)satisfaction about the correctness of the accounts
of the assessee, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that
still the disallowance must be made on a reasonable basis and
in confirming the disallowance at 50% of the disallowance
confirmed by the CIT (Appeals)?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.No.249 of 2014
(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal is justified in confirming the depreciation
allowance on UPS and Voltage Stabilizer at 25% as against
80% claimed by the assessee?"
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 12.04.2021 by the Income
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.No.249 of 2014
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
av
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
“C” Bench, Chennai,
2. The Commissioner of Income - Tax,
Madurai.
3. The Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range - I, Chennai.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- I,
Madurai.
TCA.No.249 of 2014
04.04.2022
(2/4)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
