M/S. MADRAS ENGINEERING vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that it was not necessary to decide the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the assessee informed the court that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT on the disallowance of guarantee commission and rent payments were not addressed by the High Court as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Madras Engineering Industries P Ltd., filed appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The appeals, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertained to Assessment Year 2012-2013. The appeals challenged the ITAT's order which sustained the disallowance of guarantee commission paid to directors and rent paid to a director for leased property. The High Court admitted the appeals on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the assessee informed the court that they had availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and sought permission to withdraw the appeals.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide five substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in sustaining the disallowance of guarantee commission paid to directors, including a non-whole time director, by questioning its business necessity? 2. Whether the Revenue is empowered to question the necessity of such payment under Section 37(1) or Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or any other provision? 3. Whether the ITAT erred in sustaining the disallowance of rent payments to a director for property leased to the company, which was then provided rent-free to the same director under their employment contract? 4. Whether the ITAT erred in disregarding the lease agreement under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act and treating rent paid to a director as remuneration in another form? 5. Whether the ITAT erred in sustaining the disallowance of rent paid to a director when the fair market value of the rent was not questioned? The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals. The revenue did not present arguments as the appeals were withdrawn.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.483 & 486 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 23.02.2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.Nos.483 & 486 of 2017 M/s. Madras Engineering Industries P Ltd., 14, Sathyanarayana Avenue, R.A.Puram, chennai - 600 028 PAN : AAACM 4509 P ... Appellant in both TCAs v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle - 4(1), Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondent in both TCAs Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench, dated 21.09.2016 in I.T.A.Nos.2261 Mds/2015 & 130/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. Page 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.483 & 486 of 2017 For Appellant : Mr.M. Kaushik
(in both TCA) for Mr. A.S.Sriraman For Respondent : Mr. Karthik Ranganathan
(in both TCA) Standing Counsel COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.) These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directed against the common order dated 21.09.2016 made in I.T.A.Nos.2261 Mds/2015 & 130/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2.The appeals were admitted on 14.11.2017 on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the disallowance of the claim for deduction of guarantee commission paid to the Directors of the assessee Page 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.483 & 486 of 2017 company, including a non-whole time Director, by questioning the necessity of such payment in the course of business of the assessee company? (ii) Whether the Revenue is empowered to question the necessity of payment in the course of business of the assessee company either under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or under section 40A(2)(a) of the said Act or under any other provision of the said Act? (iii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in sustaining the disallowance or rent payments to a Director towards rent of a property owned by such Director and taken by the company on lease and/or tenancy to provide rent free accommodation to the same Director under the contract of employment of the Director with the assessee company? (iv) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in disregarding the original transaction between the assessee company and its Director under section 40A(2) (a) of the Income Page 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.483 & 486 of 2017 Tax Act, 1961 with regard to payment of rent to a Director in respect of the premises leased from such Director and treating the same as payment of remuneration in another form notwithstanding the existence of an enforceable lease agreement and/or rental agreement? (v) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in sustaining the disallowance fo payment of rent by the assessee company to its Director for the property taken on lease/rent from the Director, though no authority had questioned ;the fair market value of the rent paid to the Director of the property leased to the assessee company?" .3. We have heard Mr.M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. 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 Page 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.483 & 486 of 2017 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. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form – 3 on 23.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeals. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] 23.02.2021 3/3
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Rj Page 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.483 & 486 of 2017 To 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle - 4(1), Chennai - 600 034. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench. Page 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.483 & 486 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Rj
T.C.A.Nos.483 & 486 of 2017 23.02.2021 3/3 Page 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026