THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE

T.C.A.Nos.350 to 352 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos.350 to 352 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant in all TCAs Versus M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Block-1, Corporation Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli - 607 801, PAN : AAACN 1121C ... Respondent in all TCAs Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.2161 to 2163/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel in all TCAs Page 1/6 T.C.A.Nos.350 to 352 of 2018 For Respondent : Mr.Lakshmi Kumaran in all TCAs COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, relating to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13. 2.By order dated 10.07.2018, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether business of generation and distribution of power was eligible for additional depreciation for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13, when the business of generation or distribution of power had been included in Section 32 (1) (ii) with effect from the Assessment Year 2013-14? (ii) Whether drainage and water supply system is to be treated as a plant or as a building for the purpose of claiming depreciation? Page 2/6 T.C.A.Nos.350 to 352 of 2018 (iii) Whether the Tribunal appreciated the true scope, effect and ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co.Ltd., reported in (1992) 196 ITR 149 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Modi Industries Ltd., reported in (1992) 197 ITR 517? (iv) Whether "insurance spares", which according to the appellant, are exclusive spares having value of Rs.50lakhs or more attached to a specific fixed asset, and cannot be used for any other machinery, or for day-to-day repairs, is to be treated as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure? " 3.When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / assessee submitted that during the pendency of these tax case appeals, the assessee has availed the benefit conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and filed necessary declarations, which were accepted and Form 5 / order for full and final settlement of tax arrears, was also issued by the Income tax department, on 09.11.2021. The learned counsel has also filed Form 5 dated 09.11.2021 to that effect. Page 3/6 T.C.A.Nos.350 to 352 of 2018 4.The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/ Revenue. 5.In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion that nothing survives for adjudication in these appeals. Recording the submission so made by the learned counsel on either side, these Tax Case Appeals stand disposed of. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 01.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No av Page 4/6 T.C.A.Nos.350 to 352 of 2018 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-II, Chennai. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17. Chennai. Page 5/6 T.C.A.Nos.350 to 352 of 2018 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av Tax Case Appeal Nos.350 to 352 of 2018

01.08.2022 Page 6/6