Madras High Court
M/S.I.P. Rings Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 August, 2022
Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019
&
CMP.No.6145 of 2019
M/s.I.P. Rings Ltd.,
No.24, College Road,
Arjay Apex Centre,
Chennai 600 006, now at
D11/12, Industrial Estate,
Maraimalai Nagar 603 209. ... Appellant in both appeals
Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle 2(2),
Chennai 600 006. ... Respondent in both appeals
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “C”
Bench, dated 28.07.2017 passed in I.T.A.Nos.2667 & 2668/Mds/2016 for
the respective Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019
For Appellant in both appeals : Mr.Venkata Narayan
for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
For Respondent in both appeals: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan,
Standing counsel
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Assessee
challenging the order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal', for brevity) in I.T.A.Nos.2667
& 2668/Mds/2016 relating to respective Assessment Years 2010-11 and
2011-12, by raising the following substantial questions of law.
“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of
CIT (Appeals) treating 25% of the Royalty payment made
towards right to use the technical know-how granted by the
Non Resident as Capital in nature?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
the Tribunal was right in treating 25% of the royalty payment
as capital expenditure u/s.32(1) when the same is not owned by
the appellant and tax was deductible at source on the ground
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019
that payment was for right to use and not for acquisition of
intangible asset?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case the Tribunal was right in holding that the ratio of
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Southern
Switchgears v. CIT 232 ITR 359 (SC) dealing with the initial
year of setting up of factory is applicable to the facts of this
case?
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case the Tribunal was right in not following the Judgemnt of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.CIT Vs. IAEC
Pumps Ltd 232 ITR 316 and CIT Vs.Panasonic Carbon India
Ltd (Mad) which is applicable to the facts of the case?”
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 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 were issued to the assessee on 21.04.2021
by the Income Tax Department. The learned counsel has also filed memos to
that effect.
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019
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 respondent / Revenue.
4.This court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on
either side, as per which, the assessee has already availed the benefit
conferred under the beneficial legislation viz., the Direct Tax Vivad Se
Vishwas Act, 2020, enacted for resolution of disputed tax and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto, which came into force with effect
from 17.03.2020; and the declarations submitted by the assessee were also
accepted and Form 3 were also issued to them by the Income Tax
Department. In view of such development, it is unnecessary for this court to
decide the substantial questions of law arisen in these tax case appeals.
5.Therefore, recording the submissions so made by the learned counsel
on either side, these appeals stand disposed of, directing the department to
process the application in accordance with the Act and communicate the
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019
decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
08.08.2022
msr
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle 2(2),
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai “C” Bench, Chennai.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6,
Chennai-34.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
msr
Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019
&
CMP.No.6145 of 2019
08.08.2022
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
