THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S REDINGTON INDIA LTD

TCA.No.359 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.3.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.359 of 2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Redington India Ltd., Chennai-32. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.9.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.959/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan Judgment was delivered by

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.359 of 2019 dated 23.9.2016 made in I.T.A.No.959/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appeal was admitted on 17.6.2019 on the following substantial questions of law: “i. Is not the order of the Tribunal perverse by allowing the claim of trademark licence fee paid by the assessee to its associate enterprise when the fact remains that the associate enterprise is not the registered owner of the trademark ? ii. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of trademark especially when the assessee had been using the same trademark since 1993 while so the associate enterprise was only formed in the year 2005 ? iii. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the corporate bank guarantee given by the assessee to its associate enterprise is not an international transaction especially when, as per the amended provision of Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.4.2012, the word 'guarantee' had been included within the purview of international transaction as per Explanation (c) to Section 92B ? and 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.359 of 2019 iv. Whether the investment made in the subsidiary company should be excluded for the purpose of calculation of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules especially when there is no such exclusion provided for under the Act?” 3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ assessee. 4. The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 28.12.2020 and is awaiting orders to be passed in Form No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the Competent Authority shall process the application/declaration in accordance with the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. The assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.359 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J RS filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a miscellaneous petition for restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed are left open. No costs. 16.3.2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai.

TCA.No.359 of 2019 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/