M/s.Fenner (India) Limited vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions 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 that the assessee had availed the benefit of this scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 13.01.2021. Therefore, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Department was directed to process the application under the Act at the earliest. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain the restoration petition without insisting on a delay condonation application. The substantial questions of law were expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Fenner (India) Limited, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, in I.T.A.No.1024/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2003-04. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute concerned the eligibility of royalty income received for providing know-how, secret formula, manufacturing process, and methods for goods manufactured by a subsidiary and exported by the assessee for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The High Court noted that the Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, to resolve disputed tax matters. The assessee informed the court that they had availed the benefit of this scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 13.01.2021.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the royalty income received for providing know-how, secret formula, manufacturing process, and methods in respect of goods manufactured by the subsidiary and exported by the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether 90% of the royalty receipts should be excluded from the profits of the business for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the royalty income should be eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. (No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the provided text for the assessee's arguments on the merits). Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the royalty income was not eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC and that 90% of such receipts should be excluded from the business profits for the purpose of computing the deduction. (No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the provided text for the revenue's arguments on the merits).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No.441 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Tax Case Appeal No.441 of 2021 M/s.Fenner (India) Limited, No.3, Madurai Melakkal Road, Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016.
... Appellant Vs.
The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range I, Madurai. ... 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 25.02.2013 passed in I.T.A.No.1024/Mds/2012. Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.441 of 2021 For Appellant : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan
Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.V.Pushpa Standing Counsel
J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, 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 25.02.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1024/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2003-04. The appellant/assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law in this appeal : “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the royalty income received for providing know-how, secret formula manufacturing process and methods in respect of goods manufactured by the subsidiary and exported by the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act? Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.441 of 2021 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that 90% of the royalty receipts should be excluded from the profits of the business for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act?” 2. We have heard Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3. 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 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. Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.441 of 2021 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee has availed the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 13.01.2021. 5. In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending. At the same time, the interest of the assessee in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour of the assessee, is to be safeguarded. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the assessee has already been issued with Form-3 and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore the 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 filed for condonation of delay in Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.441 of 2021 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 Division Bench for orders. 6. With this observation, this Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty, and consequently, the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.) 26.08.2021 (2/2)
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench 2.The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range I, Madurai. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.441 of 2021 T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.441 of 2021
26.08.2021 (2/2) Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 80HHC
- Sheena Industries, Panipat vs ACIT Circle, PanipatITA 3076/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: Disposed26 May 2026AY 2004-2005
- Sarla Fashion Garments, New Delhi vs JCIT, Range-31, DelhiITA 1799/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2001-2002
- M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd vs C I T and AnrITA/517/200826 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare LtdITA/271/20095 Feb 2026
- CIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever LtdITA/677/20085 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026