M/S.TAMILNADU CIVIL SUPPLIES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF I
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the Tax Case Appeal with liberty granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not in their favour. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left undecided. The Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 09.12.2020. If the ultimate decision on this declaration was adverse to the assessee, they could seek restoration of the appeal. The Registry was directed to entertain such a prayer without insisting on a condonation of delay application. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ('the Tribunal'). The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2014-15. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the assessee informed the Court that they had filed a declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and orders were passed on 09.12.2020. In light of this subsequent event, the High Court granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration under the scheme was not in their favour.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are constitutionally valid, given the lack of reasons for their insertion to overcome the law declared by the Apex Court in M/s. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in not following the Calcutta High Court's decision on the validity of Section 43B(f), despite interim orders from the Apex Court? 3. Whether the assessee's claim for deduction of provision for leave encashment in the computation of taxable total income was proper and justified? The assessee argued that Section 43B(f) lacked constitutional validity and that the Tribunal should have followed the Calcutta High Court's decision. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.522 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.12.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.522 of 2019
M/s.Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai-10 ...Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai-34 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 04.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.1685/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. For Appellant: Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, JSC Judgment was delivered by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.522 of 2019 the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 04.2.2019 made in I.T.A.No.1685/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'B' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appeal was admitted on 26.7.2019 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether the provisions of Section 43B(f) of the Act is constitutionally valid in view of lack of reasons shown for inserting the said provisions in the Statute to overcome the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.? ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in not following the only decision available on the validity of the provisions in Section 43B(f) of the Act rendered by the Calcutta High Court despite the interim orders passed by the Apex Court in relation thereto? And iii. Whether the claim for deduction of the provision for leave encashment made in the computation of taxable total income by the appellant is proper and justified ?” 3. We have heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.522 of 2019 Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue. 4. The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 09.12.2020 in Form No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision taken on the declaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a miscellaneous petition for restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed are left open. No costs. 17.12.2020 RS 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.522 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai-34 TCA.No.522 of 2019 17.12.2020 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026