THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
TCA/546/2015HC Madras27 August 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the first substantial question of law, concerning the allowability of electricity charges paid to Wescare, was covered by a decision rendered in the assessee's own case by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tube Investments of India (P) Ltd. (2023) 150 Taxmann.com Page 186 (SC). Consequently, this question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Regarding the second and third substantial questions of law, which were considered issues arising from the first question, the Court found that in view of the decision on the first question, the matter needed to be remitted back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. The appeal was disposed of with this direction, answering the first question in favour of the assessee. No specific finding was recorded on the merits of the second and third issues by the High Court, as they were remitted.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('A' Bench) in ITA No.986/Mds/2009. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's decision concerning the assessee, M/s. Tube Investments of India Limited. The procedural history leading to this appeal involves the Tribunal's order which is now under challenge before the High Court. The specific assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text, nor is the exact amount in dispute.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the electricity charges paid to Wescare were to be allowed in the hands of the assessee. 2. Whether interest under Section 234D would apply only from 2004-05, even if the regular assessment was completed on or after 01.06.2003. 3. Whether interest under Section 234D is to be charged when the assessment was completed for the first time under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) on 28.12.2006, by which time Section 234D had been introduced effective from 01.06.2003, including Explanation 2 which declared its applicability to assessment years commencing prior to 01.06.2003. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its findings on these issues. The assessee argued in favour of the Tribunal's order. The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by each side, other than referencing a Supreme Court decision for the first question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 234D,Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.546 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.08.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.546 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.Tube Investments of India Limited (Formerly known as TI Diamond Chain Ltd) 'Dare House", No.234, NSC Bose Road Chennai 600 001. ... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench in ITA No.986/Mds/2009. For Appellant : Mrs.V.Pushpa Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.K.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan ---- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.546 of 2015 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) At the time of admission of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed. i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the electricity charges paid to Wescare is to be allowed in the hands of the assessee? ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest u/s.234D would apply only from 2004-05 even though the order of regular assessment was completed on or after 01.06.2003? iii. Whether interest u/s 234D is to be charged as the assessment was completed for the 1st time u/s 147 r.w.S.143(3) on 28.12.2006 by which time Sec.234D had been introduced with effect from 01.06.2003 and also explanation 2 introduced thereunder which declared that it could be applicable even to assessment years commencing prior to 01.06.2003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.546 of 2015 2. The first question of law raised in this appeal is covered by a decision rendered in assessee's own case in Commissioner of Income Tax -vs- Tube Investments of India (P) Ltd., (2023) 150 Taxmann.com Page 186 (SC). 3. Therefore, to that extent the first question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Insofar as the substantial questions of law 2 and 3 are concerned, they are clearly issues arising out of the first question of law. In order to answer those questions in view of the decision having been made in favour of the assessee on the first question of law, the matter is remitted back to the assessing officer. 4. With the above direction, this appeal is disposed of answering the first question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 27.08.2024 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes/No KST https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.546 of 2015 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench Chennai. T.C.A.No.546 of 2015 27.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 234D

All 2,105 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →