COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TTK HEALTHCARE LIMITED
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the Assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the Assessment Year 2012-2013, and a full and final settlement order had been issued on 21.09.2021. The Revenue's counsel submitted that in light of this subsequent development, the appeal should be disposed of. The Assessee's counsel was not aware of the present appeal. Consequently, the High Court held that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant (Revenue), the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the two issues raised were not adjudicated by the High Court due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in I.T.A. No. 2109/Mds/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-2013. The High Court admitted the appeal, framing two substantial questions of law. During the pendency of the appeal, the Assessee (M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited) availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee filed necessary declarations, which were accepted, and a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on 21.09.2021. The Revenue submitted that due to this development, the appeal should be disposed of.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that logo charges paid by the assessee were revenue in nature even though such payment had been made continuously for several years for enduring benefit? This question turns on the interpretation of provisions related to the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition made under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, towards depot service charges paid to a related concern even though the same was above the market rate? This question concerns the allowability of expenses paid to related parties exceeding market rates. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred on both counts. The Assessee's counsel stated they were unaware of the present appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A No.487 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.11.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.487 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 3 Chennai.
.. Appellant Versus
M/s.TTK Healthcare Limited, No.6, Cathedral Road, Chennai-600 006 PAN:AABCT 3312 J .. Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, Chennai dated 25.11.2016 passed in I.T.A.No. 2109/Mds/2016. Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A No.487 of 2017 For Appellant : Ms.V.Pushpa for Mr.M.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for Ms.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan J U D G M E N T This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Assessee challenging the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'C', Chennai ('the Tribunal', for brevity) in I.T.A. No.2109/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. This Court vide order dated 06.09.2017, admitted this Appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : “1.Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that logo charges paid by the assessee were revenue in nature even though such payment had been made continuously for several years for enduring benefit? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition made under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A No.487 of 2017 Income Tax Act,1961 towards depot service charges paid to a related concern even though the same was above the market rate? " 3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant / Revenue submitted that during the pendency of this tax case appeal, the Assessee has availed the benefit conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 and filed necessary declarations, which were accepted and Form 5 / order for full and final settlement of tax arrears, was also issued by the Income Tax Department, on 21.09.2021. The learned counsel has also filed Form 5 dated 21.09.2021 to that effect. She has further submitted that in view of this subsequent development the Assessee has withdrawn the Appeal filed by the Assessee in T.C.A.No.587 of 2016 and therefore this Appeal may also be disposed of. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ Assessee submitted that he is not aware of the present Appeal. Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A No.487 of 2017 5.In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion S.VAIDYANATHAN, J. and C.SARAVANAN, J. arr that nothing survives for adjudication in this Appeal. Recording the submission so made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. [S.V.N, J.] [C.S.N, J.] 07.11.2022 Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No arr To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench 2. Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 3 Chennai.
T.C.A No.487 of 2017 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A No.487 of 2017 Page 5/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 40A(2)(b)
- Nidhi Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The PCIT (Central), AhmedabadITA 985/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nirav Dineshbhai Bha vs Ar, Ahmedabadvs.the ITO, Ward-5(3)(2)…ITA 1971/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nirav Dineshbhai Bha vs Ar, Ahmedabadvs.the ITO, Ward-5(3)(2)…ITA 1971/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Debdeep Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 11(1), KolkataITA 1386/KOL/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Flora Biochem Private Limited, Coimbatore vs DCIT, CoimbatoreITA 1123/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026