M/S I.P.RINGS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

TCA/318/2015HC Madras08 August 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal had already been decided in favour of the assessee against the Revenue in T.C.A.No.551 of 2013 (M/s. Brakes India Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax). The Court noted that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue against the decision in the Brakes India Ltd. case was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Aztec Auto (P) Ltd. had reiterated this position, stating that the decision in Brakes India Ltd., having been approved by the Supreme Court, was binding. Therefore, following the precedent set by the Brakes India Ltd. case, the High Court allowed the appeal and answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. I.P. Rings Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the High Court was considering the appeal against the ITAT's order dated 26.09.2014 in ITA No.1328/MDS/2014. The High Court noted that the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal had already been decided in favour of the assessee in a previous case, T.C.A.No.551 of 2013 (M/s. Brakes India Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax). The Revenue's Special Leave Petition against that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal have already been decided in favour of the assessee by this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court? (Question of law). The assessee contended that the issue in the present appeal is identical to the one decided in T.C.A.No.551 of 2013, where the Division Bench of this Court ruled in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue's SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The assessee relied on the principle that a decision approved by the Supreme Court is binding. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided judgment, other than their prior unsuccessful attempt to challenge the decision in Brakes India Ltd. through an SLP.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.318 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.08.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.318 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 M/s.I.P.Rings Ltd Arjay Apex Centre No.24, College Road Chennai 600 006. ... Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle II(3) 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, Chennai, dated 26.09.2014 in I.T.A.No.1328/MDS/2014. ----- For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkatanarayan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Ramamani For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.318 of 2015 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.) The issue raised in this appeal with the substantial questions of law has already been decided in favour of the assessee against the Revenue in T.C.A.No.551 of 2013 in M/s.Brakes India Ltd., -vs- The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai dated 14.03.2017 and it is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the assessee / appellant that as against which the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue has already been dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which has been referred in a subsequent decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai -vs- Aztec Auto (P) Ltd., (2020) 119 Taxmann.com 215 (Madras), where, in Para 6 this position has been reiterated. It reads thus: " 12. In our considered view, the effect of the insertion of the proviso in the year 2016, may not have a bearing on the present issue, as during the relevant assessment year 2009-10, the law which has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court is the case of Brakes India Ltd., (supra) against the said decision, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble supreme Court in SLP (C) No.033755 of 2017 which was dismissed by an order dated 24.09.2018. Thus, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Brakes India Ltd., (supra) having been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are bound by the said decision and accordingly, following the same." https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.318 of 2015 2. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 08.08.2024 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes/No KST To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle II(3) Chennai 600 034. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.318 of 2015 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.Nos.318 of 2015 08.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →