M/S.INDIA PISTONS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF I

PDF · subscribers
TCA/296/2021HC Madras14 June 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act on 24.02.2021. Consequently, the assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the disallowance of set off of carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation under Section 72A. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. India Pistons Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "D" Bench, dated 26.09.2019. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2011-2012. The core of the dispute, as framed in the substantial question of law, concerns the ITAT's confirmation of the disallowance of set off of carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of an amalgamating company under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history leading to this appeal involved the ITAT's decision, which the assessee is now challenging in the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of set off of carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee, represented by Mr. R. Venkat Narayanan, sought to challenge the Tribunal's order. The specific arguments made by the assessee are not detailed in the judgment, but the framing of the question of law indicates their disagreement with the disallowance. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, represented by Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, Senior Standing Counsel, defended the order of the Tribunal. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 72A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.296 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.06.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.296 of 2021 M/s. India Pistons Ltd., Huzur Garden, Sembium Chennai – 600011 PAN : AAAC11493E

... Appellant v.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 2(2), Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, dated 26.09.2019 passed in I.T.A.No.2340/Mds/2017. For Appellant : Mr.R. Venkat Narayanan For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan

Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Tax Case Appeal No.296 of 2021 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2340/Mds/2017 for the assessment year 2011-2012. 2. The appellant has raised the following substantial question of law in the above appeal:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of set off of carried forward business loss and unabsorbed deprecation of the amalgamating company under section 72a?” 3. We have heard Mr.R. Venkat Narayanan, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 4. 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 Page 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Tax Case Appeal No.296 of 2021 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 17th March 2020. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 24.02.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.] 14.06.2021

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes Rj To Page 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Tax Case Appeal No.296 of 2021 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 2(2), Chennai – 600 034. Page 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Tax Case Appeal No.296 of 2021 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R.HEMALATHA, J. Rj Tax Case Appeal No.296 of 2021

14.06.2021

Page 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 72A

All 93 judgments and leading authorities on Section 72A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →