Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Regen Powertech (P) Ltd on 22 October, 2024
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
T.C.A.No.695 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
T.C.A.No.695 of 2019
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
-Vs-
M/s.Regen Powertech (P) Ltd.,
Samson Towers,
3rd, 4th and 5th Floors,
403, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
PAN: AADCR5531M ... Respondent
PRAYER : Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench,
Chennai dated 17.08.2016 in I.T.A.No.786/Mds/2016 for the assessment year
2011-12.
For Appellant : Mrs.V.Puspha
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
T.C.A.No.695 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question
the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai by raising the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the
additions made on account of Corporate Social
Responsibility expenses even though the same is not
pertaining to the Assessee's business?
2. Whether the expenditure incurred on Corporate
Social Responsibility which are not mandatory and
was introduced only with by Finance Act, 2014 by way
of Explanation to Section 37 is applicable only in the
subsequent year and not for the present assessment
year and therefore not allowable?
3. Whether the VAT subsidy received from the Andhra
Pradesh Government is to be treated as a capital
subsidy or revenue subsidy as they are in the nature
of supplementary trading receipt received year after
year?
4. Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sahani
Steels and Press Works Limited reported in 228 ITR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
253 wherein it had been held subsidy which are
granted year after year after setting up of a new
industries that too after commencement of production
and therefore is to be treated as assistance given for
the purpose of carrying on the business?
5. Whether the claim for provision for warranty
amounting to Rs.29,68,000/- which is not based on
any scientific basis is to be allowed as it is contrary to
the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of
Renowned Auto Products Mfrs.Ltd reported in 354
ITR page 127 Mds and that of Forbes Campbell
Finance Ltd reported in 352 ITR page 602 Mds?
6. Whether the excess royalty payment is to be allowed
on bought out components which are not manufacture
by the Assessee but are procured from 3rd parties?
7. Whether the downward adjustment made by the TPO
on bought out components based on technical
specification which are in violation of the RBI
guidelines are to be allowed?
2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for
the appellant Revenue that in the instant case, as per the CBDT's Circular No.9
of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary
limit imposed and therefore, the appeal can be disposed of, keeping the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
substantial questions of law raised in this appeal open for adjudication at a later
point of time.
3. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior
Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed
for low tax effect, keeping open the substantial questions of law for adjudication
at appropriate stage. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
22.10.2024
(1/3)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
vji
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
vji
22.10.2024
(1/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
