I.P.RINGS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF I

Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.08.2022 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019 & CMP.No.6145 of 2019 M/s.I.P. Rings Ltd., No.24, College Road, Arjay Apex Centre, Chennai 600 006, now at D11/12, Industrial Estate, Maraimalai Nagar 603 209.

... Appellant in both appeals Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 006. ... Respondent in both appeals

Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “C” Bench, dated 28.07.2017 passed in I.T.A.Nos.2667 & 2668/Mds/2016 for the respective Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019 For Appellant in both appeals : Mr.Venkata Narayan for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For Respondent in both appeals: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, Standing counsel C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Assessee challenging the order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal', for brevity) in I.T.A.Nos.2667 & 2668/Mds/2016 relating to respective Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, by raising the following substantial questions of law. “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of CIT (Appeals) treating 25% of the Royalty payment made towards right to use the technical know-how granted by the Non Resident as Capital in nature? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in treating 25% of the royalty payment as capital expenditure u/s.32(1) when the same is not owned by the appellant and tax was deductible at source on the ground Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019 that payment was for right to use and not for acquisition of intangible asset? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the ratio of Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Switchgears v. CIT 232 ITR 359 (SC) dealing with the initial year of setting up of factory is applicable to the facts of this case? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not following the Judgemnt of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.CIT Vs. IAEC Pumps Ltd 232 ITR 316 and CIT Vs.Panasonic Carbon India Ltd (Mad) which is applicable to the facts of the case?” 2.When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that during the pendency of these tax case appeals, the assessee has filed the requisite Forms 1 and 2 under Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which were accepted and Form 3 were issued to the assessee on 21.04.2021 by the Income Tax Department. The learned counsel has also filed memos to that effect. Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019 3.The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent / Revenue. 4.This court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, as per which, the assessee has already availed the benefit conferred under the beneficial legislation viz., the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, enacted for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, which came into force with effect from 17.03.2020; and the declarations submitted by the assessee were also accepted and Form 3 were also issued to them by the Income Tax Department. In view of such development, it is unnecessary for this court to decide the substantial questions of law arisen in these tax case appeals.

5.Therefore, recording the submissions so made by the learned counsel on either side, these appeals stand disposed of, directing the department to process the application in accordance with the Act and communicate the Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019 decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 08.08.2022

msr

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 006. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “C” Bench, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai-34. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr Tax Case Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2019 & CMP.No.6145 of 2019 08.08.2022 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis