COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.SICAL IRON ORE TERMINALS

TCA.No.500 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.500 of 2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd., No.73,South India House, Armenian Street, Chennai – 600 001. PAN: AAKCS5773M ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.07.2019 made in ITA.No.638/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant: Mr.J.Narayanasamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.500 of 2020 JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

) This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 19.07.2019 made in ITA.No.638/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: “Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A by applying the formula u/r 8D can be made as computed by the assessing officer when the assessee had made an huge investment and had received exempted income?” 3. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent/assessee. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.500 of 2020 4. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal was right in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had allowed the assessee's appeal holding that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. The Tribunal also noted the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investments Ltd., vs CIT [372 ITR 694(Del)]. We find that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal and that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 5. In the light of the legal position settled out in the case of Joint Investments Ltd., vs CIT [372 ITR 694(Del)], the present Tax Case Appeal is dismissed and no substantial question of law is raised for consideration. No costs. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 08.01.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment hvk 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.500 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. TCA.No.500 of 2020 08.01.2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/