M/S.DUGAR HOUSING DEVELPMENT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
TCA/48/2016HC Madras03 December 2018Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and had circulated a letter dated 29.11.2018 to the Registry to this effect. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific questions of law admitted for consideration were not adjudicated on merits due to the withdrawal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Dugar Housing Development Finance India Limited, formerly M/s. J. Paq Solutions Ltd., filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appeal was against an order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 'A' Bench, Chennai, in a Miscellaneous Petition (MP No. 63/Mds/2015) related to ITA No. 2208/Mds/2007. The assessment year in question was 1999-2000. The appeal was admitted on 25.01.2016 on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the assessee's counsel informed the court that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the miscellaneous petition filed under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount claimed by the assessee in respect of interest charged to the profit and loss account in its entirety is not allowable in view of interpretation of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the method of accounting employed by the assessee was inconsistent with past assessment year wise or project wise? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the charge in method of accounting made by the appellant was not acceptable and so the interest expenditure cannot be allowed as a period cost and the same is not legally sustainable? Assessee's contentions: The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254,Section 145

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.12.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.48 of 2016 M/s.Dugar Housing Development Finance India Limited, (Formerly known as M/s.J.Paq Solutions Ltd.,) Dugar Towers, 34 (new) Marshalls Road, Chennai-600 008. ... Appellant/Appellant

-vs- The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle-II(3), 121, Uttamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. ... Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 16.09.2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai in Miscellaneous Petition No.63/Mds/2015 in I.T.A.No.2208/Mds/2007 for the assessment year 1999-2000. For Appellant : Mr.V.S.Jayakumar For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel ****** http://www.judis.nic.in 2 JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, by the assessee filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 16.09.2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai in Miscellaneous Petition No.63/Mds/2015 in I.T.A.No.2208/Mds/2007 for the assessment year 1999-2000. 2.The above appeal has been admitted on 25.01.2016, on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the miscellaneous petition filed under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount claimed by the assessee in respect of interest charged to the profit and loss account in its entirety is not allowable in view of interpretation of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the method of accounting employed by the assessee was inconsistent with past assessment year wise or project wise? http://www.judis.nic.in 3 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the charge in method of accounting made by the appellant was not acceptable and so the interest expenditure cannot be allowed as a period cost and the same is not legally sustainable?” 3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Tax Case Appeal and circulated a letter dated 29.11.2018 to the Registry stating that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 4.Recording the letter dated 29.11.2018, and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (N.S.K., J.) 03.12.2018 abr To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II (3), 121, N.H.Road, Chennai-34. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and N.Sathish Kumar, J. (abr) T.C.A.No.48 of 2016 03.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 145

All 1,584 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →