Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Emerald Jewel Industry India Ltd on 23 October, 2024
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
T.C.A.No.659 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Tax Case Appeal No.659 of 2018
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. .... Appellant
Vs.
Emerald Jewel Industry India Ltd.,
230, T.V.Samy Road (East)
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. .... Respondent
-----
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench Chennai,
dated 07.10.2016 in ITA.No.141/MDS/2015.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman
JUDGMENT
(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 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the ITAT was justified in allowing the assessee's
claim of depreciation on the brand 'Ishtaa' when the
assessing officer for the Asst.Year 2010-11 has
clearly brought on record that the assessee company
failed to furnish any proposal / offer letter showing
the proposal of sale of Brand name; any agreement
entered into for purchase of brand name and no
invoice was produced and thus it can be stated that
the assessee company claiming to have acquired the
brand is a colourable device and the corporate veil is
liable to be lifted to get the true nature of the
transaction?
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in
allowing the assessee's claim of depreciation on the
brand 'Ishtaa' for the Asst.Year 2011-12 when the
disallowance made for the Asst.Year 2010-11 was
accepted by the assessee and the disallowance of
the said depreciation for the Asst.Year 2011-12 is a
consequence of the disallowance of the depreciation
for the Asst.Year 2010-11?
3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in
allowing the assessee's claim of depreciation on the
brand 'Ishtaa' for the Asst.Year 2011-12 thus leading
to two different results for two different Asst.Years
2 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on a similar issue viz., disallowance of depreciation
for the Asst.Year 2010-11 and allowing for the
Asst.Year 2011-12?
2. It is brought to our notice by the learned 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 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 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. No costs.
(R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.)
23.10.2024
NCS : Yes/No
KST
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
'B' Bench, Chennai.
3 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
C.SARAVANAN, J.
KST
23.10.2024
4 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
