COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SPENCER AND CO LTD.,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. The Court noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee had availed this scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 09.02.2021. Consequently, the Court found that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of on this basis, without deciding the merits of the substantial questions of law. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the Tribunal on the issues of depreciation, licence fee, Rule 8D, and Section 14A are not detailed in this judgment as the appeal was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2008-09 and concerns the assessee, M/s. Spencer & Co. Ltd. The High Court noted that it might not be necessary to decide the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, to resolve disputed tax matters. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee had availed this scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 09.02.2021.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide four substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing depreciation on expenditure incurred in building the brand 'Spencer' when the assessee had not incurred any cost for acquiring the brand and had not substantiated the basis of valuation/expenditure. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction for licence fee paid to RPG Enterprises Ltd. 3. Whether Rule 8D is prospective and not applicable to Assessment Year 2007-08. 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee incurred no expenditure towards earning exempt dividend income, thus disallowing any disallowance under Section 14A. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its findings on these issues. The judgment does not record specific contentions for the assessee on these points, beyond their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No.150 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.03.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.150 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs.
M/s.Spencer & Co. Ltd., 769, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, dated 17.04.2015 passed in I.T.A.No.1731/Mds/2012. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.150 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1731/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law in the above appeal: "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for the claim of depreciation on the alleged expenditure incurred in building the brand (Spencer) when the assessee had not incurred any cost towards acquiring the brand and when the assessee had not substantiated the basis of the valuation/expenditure incurred for the purpose of the said brand. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction of the expenditure incurred towards the licence fee paid to RPG Enterprises Ltd. Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.150 of 2017 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rule 8D is prospective in nature and is not applicable to the Asst.Year 2007-08? 4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had not incurred any expenditure towards earning the exempt dividend income and consequently no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A?” 2. We have heard Mr.J.Naryanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.150 of 2017 17th March 2020. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–3 on 09.02.2021.
5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3, nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] Index : Yes/No 09.03.2021 Internet : Yes
mkn To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. M. DURAISWAMY, J. and Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.150 of 2017 T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.150 of 2017
09.03.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026