M/S. DUGAR HOUSING DEVELOPME vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/252/2016HC Madras25 July 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel had submitted a letter requesting to post the matter for withdrawal. When the case was called, a similar request was made, and an endorsement to that effect was made in the court's records. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were left open, meaning the Tribunal's decision on these questions was not reviewed on merits by the High Court. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Dugar Housing Development Finance India Limited (formerly M/s. J. Paq Solutions Ltd.), filed an appeal before the Madras High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench, dated March 22, 2012. The appeal concerned the assessment year 1999-2000. The ITAT's order was challenged by the assessee. The appeal was admitted on April 5, 2016, on three substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the assessee's counsel submitted a letter to the Registry on June 20, 2019, requesting to post the matter for withdrawal. The appeal was listed accordingly and a similar request was made when the case was called.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in disallowing the entire interest claimed by the assessee in its profit and loss account, based on the interpretation of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee's method of accounting was inconsistent, either year-wise or project-wise. 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the change in the assessee's method of accounting was unacceptable, and consequently, the interest expenditure could not be allowed as a period cost and was not legally sustainable. The assessee contended that the Tribunal erred in its findings on these issues. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, other than its counsel appearing before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 25.7.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.252 of 2016 M/s.Dugar Housing Development Finance India Limited (formerly known as M/s.J.Paq Solutions Ltd.), Chennai-8 ...Appellant Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(3), Chennai-34 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to set aside the order dated 22.3.2012 made in ITA.No.2208/(Mds)/2007 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 1999-2000. For Appellant : Mr.V.S.Jayakumar For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC

Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2. This appeal, filed by the assessee, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), is directed against the order dated 22.3.2012 made in ITA.No.2208/(Mds)/2007 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 1999-2000. 3. The appeal was admitted on 05.4.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount claimed by the assessee in respect of interest charged to the profit and loss account in its entirety is not allowable in view of interpretation of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the method of accounting employed by the assessee was inconsistent with past assessment year wise or project wise ? and (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the change in method of accounting made by the appellant was not acceptable and so the interest expenditure cannot be allowed as a period cost and the same is not legally sustainable ?” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has given a letter dated 20.6.2019 to the Registry seeking to post this matter for withdrawal. Hence, the matter is listed today under the caption 'for withdrawal'. Today, when the case is called, a similar request is made. An endorsement is also made in the bundle to that effect. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 5. Hence, the above tax case appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law are left open. No costs. 25.7.2019 Internet: Yes To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(3), Chennai-34 RS http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.252 of 2016 25.7.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 145

All 1,584 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →