Madras High Court
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Salzer Electronics Ltd on 24 October, 2024
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar, C. Saravanan
T.C.A.No.22, 24 & 25 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
T.C.A.No.22, 24 & 25 of 2021
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
No.63, Race Course Road, Appellant in
Coimbatore 641 018. .. T.C.A.No.22 of 2021
Commissioner of Income Tax Appellant in
Chennai. .. T.C.A.Nos.24 & 25 of 2021
Vs.
M/s.Salzer Electronics Ltd.
No.1, Samichettipalayam Post
Jothipuram via, Coimbatore 641 047 Respondent in
PAN: AAC CS 7106 G. .. T.C.A.No.22 of 2021
M/s. Sivananda Saraswathi Sevasharamam
20, Kambar Street, East Tambaram
Chennai 600 059 Respondent in
PAN AATS 0160 K. .. T.C.A.Nos.24 & 25 of 2021
Prayer in T.C.A.No.22 of 2021: Appeal filed under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, Chennai dated 26.02.2020
in I.T.A.No.1858/Chny/2019;
Prayer in T.C.A.No.24 of 2021: Appeal filed under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, Chennai dated 06.02.2019
in I.T.A.No.1823/Chny/2018; and
Prayer in T.C.A.No.25 of 2021: Appeal filed under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, Chennai dated 06.02.2019
in I.T.A.No.1824/Chny/2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
T.C.A.No.22, 24 & 25 of 2021
For the Appellant Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
in T.C.A.No.22 of 2021 : Senior Standing Counsel
For the Respondent
in T.C.A.No.22 of 2021 : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
For the Appellant
in T.C.A.Nos.24 Ms.V.Pushpa
& 25 of 2021 : Senior Standing Counsel
For the Respondents
in T.C.A.Nos.24 Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for
& 25 of 2021 : Mr.Subbaraya Iyer
Padmanabhan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
T.C.A.No.22 of 2021 was admitted on 18.01.2021 on the
following substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in
setting aside the order of AO and CIT(A) and
directing the AO to allow the deduction of ESOP
expenditure, which was not debited in the Profit
and Loss account?
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in
holding that absence and presence of entry in the
books of account does not decide the allowability
or otherwise of ESOP expenditure?
3. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that
SEBI had repealed the ESOP expenditure and
once provision is repealed, it should be deemed
that it was never part of guideline note?
2. T.C.A.Nos.24 and 25 of 2021 were admitted on 08.01.2021
on the following substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.22, 24 & 25 of 2021
in holding that the assessee is entitled for benefit
under the provisions of Section 11 even though
the assessee had not filed proper form 10 for
accumulation of income and had not intended to
purchase the lands during the financial year
relating to the present assessment year 2011-12?
2. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right
in holding that the assessee will be entitled for
benefit under the provisions of Section 11 even
though the assessee had accumulated the income
in the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 and had not
spent the said accumulated income within 5
years in contradiction to the specific provisions of
Section 11(3) rw 11(2)(a) rw 2nd provisio to
Section 11(2)?
3. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right
in holding that for the purpose of the 2nd provisio
to Section 11(2) the period of exclusion starts
from the date of initiation of proceedings by the
CMDA and not from the date of the stay order of
this Court being 21.07.2015?
4. Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal was right in not
appreciating that the stay order of this Court was
dated 21.07.2015 is much after the outer limit of
five years period stipulated and therefore, the
unspent accumulated income is to be assessed to
tax as per the provisions of Section 11?
3. It is submitted by the respective learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue that all these Tax
Case Appeals are covered under the Low Tax Effect as per the
recent Circular dated 17.09.2024, in Circular No.9/2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.22, 24 & 25 of 2021
4. Recording the same, these appeals stand dismissed as Low
Tax Effect. The questions of law raised in these appeals are kept
open to be decided at the later point of time. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.278 of 2021 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J)
24.10.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.22, 24 & 25 of 2021
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
C. SARAVANAN, J.
(drm)
T.C.A.No.22, 24 & 25 of 2021
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
