Madras High Court
M/S. Nlc India Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 1 August, 2022
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal Nos.684 to 688 of 2017
and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
and
CMP.Nos.17689 to 17693 of 2017 and 687 to 690 of 2018
M/s. NLC India Limited
(formerly known as Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited)
(F&AB) Income Tax Section,
Corporate Office Neyveli - 607 801.
... Appellant in all
TCAs
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Tax Payer Unit,
Chennai - 600 034.
... Respondent in TCA.Nos.684, 686 to
688 of 2017 and 64 of
The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Tax Payer unit,
Chennai - 600 034.
Page 1/10
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
... Respondent in TCA.No.685 of 2017
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Tax Payer Unit - II,
Chennai - 600 034.
... Respondent in TCA.Nos.62, 63,
65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the orders dated 28.04.2017, 10.08.2017 and 18.12.2018 passed
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" & “B” Bench,
Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1983/Mds/2011, I.T.A.Nos.855, 2029, 2077 and
2140/Mds/2013, I.T.A.Nos. 2199, 2161, 2163 and 2200/Mds/2016 and
I.T.A.No.1707/Chny/2015.
For Appellant : Mr.Lakshmi Kumaran in all TCAs
For Respondents : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel in all TCAs
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / assessee,
challenging the orders dated 28.04.2017, 10.08.2017 and 18.12.2018 passed
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, relating to the respective
Page 2/10
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2007-08, 2010-11, 2010-11, 2009-10,
2009-10, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2011-12, by raising the following substantial
questions of law:-
TCA.Nos.684, 685, 687 of 2017:-
"(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the finding of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in
so far it arrived at a conclusion regarding assurance of
recovery based on an agreement to which the Appellant is not
even a party?
(ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that
the 'surcharge recoverable from electricity boards' is to be
taxed as income in the year of accrual only despite the fact
there existed uncertainty in realization?
(iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding the
matter back to the learned Assessing Officer for fresh
consideration when the Bonds were issued towards adjustment
of dues from EBS and no expenditure per se was incurred for
obtaining the tax free bonds?"
TCA.Nos.686 of 2017 and 64 of 2018:-
"(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the finding of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in
Page 3/10
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
so far it arrived at a conclusion regarding assurance of
recovery based on an agreement to which the Appellant is not
even a party?
(ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that
the 'surcharge recoverable from electricity boards' is to be
taxed as income in the year of accrual only despite the fact
there existed uncertainty in realization?"
TCA.No.688 of 2017:-
"Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the
'other income' is to be excluded from the calculation of total
income for the purpose of availing deduction under Section
80IA?"
TCA.No.62 of 2018:-
"(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the
re-opening of assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act was
valid?
(ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that
the 'other income' is to be excluded from the calculation of
total income for the purpose of availing deduction under
Section 80IA?
Page 4/10
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
(iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
with respect to 'other income' the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in estimating only 10% as expenses without
any reference to any material or documentary evidence to
support such a negligible expense element, when the actual
operating expenses for the year as per published accounts is
around 77%?"
TCA.No.63 of 2018:-
"(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in denying
deduction under section 80-IA with respect to handing charges
received by the appellant?
(ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
with respect to 'handling charges' the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in estimating only 10% as expenses without
any reference to any material or documentary evidence to
support such a negligible expense element, when the actual
operating expenses for the year as per published accounts is
around 77%?"
TCA.No.64 of 2018:-
"(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the finding of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is incorrect in
Page 5/10
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
so far as it arrived at a conclusion regarding assurance of
recovery based on an agreement to which the Appellant is not
even a party?
(ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that
the 'surcharge recoverable from electricity boards' is to be
taxed as income in the year of accrual only despite the fact
there existed uncertainty in realization?"
TCA.No.65 of 2018:-
"(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that
the 'other income' is to be excluded from the calculation of
total income for the purpose of availing deduction under
Section 80IA?
(ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
with respect to 'other income' the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in estimating only 10% as expenses without
any reference to any material or documentary evidence to
support such a negligible expense element, when the actual
operating expenses for the year as per published accounts is
around 64%?
(iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding the
matter back to the learned Assessing Officer for fresh
Page 6/10
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
consideration when the Bonds were issued towards adjustment
of dues from EBs and no expenditure per se was incurred for
obtaining the tax free bonds?"
TCA.No.389 of 2019:-
"(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that
the 'other income' is to be excluded from the calculation of
total income for the purpose of availing deduction under
Section 80IA?
(ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in estimating the
quantum of profit element embedded in the 'other income'
without adducing any basis to support the same?
(iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in denying the
benefit of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia)?"
2. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee submitted that during the
pendency of these tax case appeals, the assessee has availed the benefit
conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and filed
necessary declarations, which were accepted and Form 5 / order for full and
final settlement of tax arrears, was also issued by the Income tax department,
Page 7/10
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
on 28.10.2021 and 09.11.2021. The learned counsel has also filed Form 5
dated 28.10.2021 and 09.11.2021 to that effect.
3. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned standing
counsel appearing for the respondents/ Revenue.
4. In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion
that nothing survives for adjudication in these appeals. Recording the
submission so made by the learned counsel on either side, these Tax Case
Appeals stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
01.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
av
Page 8/10
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 'A' Bench.
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 'B' Bench.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Tax Payer Unit,
Chennai - 600 034.
4. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Tax Payer Unit,
Chennai - 600 034.
5. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Tax Payer Unit - II,
Chennai - 600 034.
Page 9/10
TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
Tax Case Appeal Nos.684 to 688 of 2017
and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019
01.08.2022
Page 10/10
