Madras High Court
M/S. Macmillan India Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 4 January, 2022
T.C.A.No.167 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.No.167 of 2009
M/s. Macmillan India Limited,
21, Pattullos Road,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Special Range VII,
Chennai.
... 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 08.10.2003 in I.TA.No.47/Mds/94.
For Appellant : Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar
For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
T.C.A.No.167 of 2009
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Assessee,
challenging the order dated 08.10.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, in I.TA.No.47/Mds/94, relating to the assessment
year 1990-91.
2.By order dated 22.04.2009, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the receipts does
not arise for eligible business for the purpose of section 32AB,
which is against the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Appollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) wherein the profits of
the eligible business for the purpose of Section 32AB has been
explained?
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the above
receipts cannot be considered as business income without
appreciating that the profits of the eligible business or profession
has to be computed under section 32AB(3) in accordance with
part II and Part III of the Sixth Schedule of the Companies Act
and not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.167 of 2009
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the
tribunal ought to have appreciated that any income not derived
from types of business excluded under clause (a) and (b) of sub-
section 2 of Section 32AB shall constitute income from eligible
business for the purpose of Section 32AB as per the ration of the
decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd
(255 ITR 273) and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in
the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd (265 ITR 372)".
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the
appellant sought permission of this Court to withdraw this Tax Case Appeal.
He has also filed a memo dated 04.01.2022 to that effect.
4.Recording the above submission and the memo filed on the side of the
appellant, permission is granted to withdraw the case and accordingly, this Tax
Case Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions
of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
04.01.2022
av
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.167 of 2009
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 'C' Bench,
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Special Range VII,
Chennai.
T.C.A.No.167 of 2009
04.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
