M/S, HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/490/2017HC Madras25 March 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law. The Court was informed that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had been issued Form-3 on December 21, 2020. Consequently, the learned counsel for the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the expenditure by the High Court, nor was any ratio decidendi established for future cases concerning the deductibility of such expenses. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras Bench, dated August 28, 2015. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2007-08. The core dispute involved the deductibility of expenditure incurred by the assessee in providing 100 cars to the Police Department of Tamil Nadu as a business expense. The procedural history leading to this appeal involved the ITAT's decision, which the assessee challenged under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court was to decide on the substantial question of law raised by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee by giving 100 cars to the Police Department of Tamil Nadu is not an eligible business expenditure under Section 37 of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the expenditure incurred on providing cars to the Police Department was an eligible business expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. The specific arguments or precedents relied upon by the assessee are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the expenditure was not an eligible business expenditure. The specific arguments or precedents relied upon by the revenue are not detailed in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.490 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.03.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.490 of 2017 M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungatukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Chennai – 602 117. ... Appellant Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II, Chennai. ... Respondent

Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench, dated 28.08.2015 passed in I.T.A.No.2157/Mds/2011. For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.490 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, 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 28.08.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No 2157/Mds/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2.The appellant has raised the following Substantial Question of Law in the grounds of appeal: “Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by assessee by giving 100 cars to the Police Department of Tamil Nadu is not an eligible business expenditure under Section 37 of the Act?” 3.We have heard Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 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 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.490 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/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form – 3 on 21.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 6.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] Index : Yes/No 25.03.2021

Internet : Yes

va M. DURAISWAMY, J. Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.490 of 2017 and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. va To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II, Chennai. Tax Case Appeal No.490 of 2017

25.03.2021 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →