THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER O vs. M/S.HYUNDAI STEEL INDIA PVT

TCA.Nos.418 & 419 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.11.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal Nos.418 & 419 of 2020 & CMP.No.13191 of 2020 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai-34. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Hyundai Steel India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as M/s.Hysco Steel India Pvt. Ltd.), Kancheepuram-602002. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 27.3.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.Nos.1266 and 1529/Chny/2018 respectively for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2012-13. For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC assisted by Mr.Rajesh Sivanandham, JSC 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.418 & 419 of 2020 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

,J)

These appeals have been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the common order dated 27.3.2019 made in I.T.A.Nos.1266 and 1529/ Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'D' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) respectively for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether,

the

facts

and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribuanl was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance as to exempted income was earned by the assessee without appreciating the CBDT circular No.5/ 2014 wherein it is clarified that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D has to be made even if the tax payer in a particular year not earned by any exempt income ?” 3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.Rajesh Sivanandham, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.418 & 419 of 2020 4. It is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue that the substantial question of law raised for consideration was answered against the Revenue by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Marg Ltd. Vs. CIT [reported in (2020) 120 Taxmann.com 84] wherein it was held that the disallowance under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read with Section 14A of the Act could never exceed exempted income earned by the assessee during the particular assessment year and that the same could be computed as per Rule 8D of the said Rules only after recording satisfaction by the Assessing Authority. 5. In the earlier decision of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, in the case of CIT Vs. Tidel Park Ltd. [TCA. Nos.732 and 733 of 2018 dated 07.7.2020], an identical view was taken, in which, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694] and in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. [reported in (2015) 370 ITR 338] and also the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, Mumbai Vs. DCIT [reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81]. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.418 & 419 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J RS 6. Thus, following the above decisions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. 30.11.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai. TCA.Nos.418 & 419 of 2020 and CMP.No.13191 of 2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in