ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S ESAB INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 2645/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2026AY 2017-1812 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee company made a one-time settlement payment to contractors and claimed it as a business expense. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount, considering it capital in nature. The CIT(A) allowed only 1/5th of the amount, amortizing the rest over five years.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance of one-time settlement to contractors back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also remitted the issue related to Dividend Distribution Tax and DTAA benefits back to the AO for decision based on the final Supreme Court ruling.

What were the issues?

Whether the one-time settlement payment to contractors is a revenue expenditure, and whether Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the company should be considered in light of DTAA rates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1),Section 14A,Section 115O

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 15.05.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2353/Chny/2025
ITA No.2645/Chny/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M:

ITA Nos.2253 & 2645/Chny/2025 ESAV India Ltd. :- 2 -:

Thes

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,940 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →