M/S. TTK HEALTHCARE LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
TCA/557/2016HC Madras22 June 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the learned counsel for the assessee that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under the said Act, and the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The issue regarding the entitlement to set off carried forward depreciation was not adjudicated on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. TTK Healthcare Ltd, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 02.07.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2004-05. The substantial question of law admitted for consideration by the High Court concerned the assessee's entitlement to set off carried forward depreciation of amalgamating companies under Section 72A read with Rule 9C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court was informed that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to set off the carried forward depreciation of the amalgamating companies in terms of the provisions of Section 72A read with Rule 9C? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that they were entitled to set off the carried forward depreciation of amalgamating companies under Section 72A read with Rule 9C. (Specific arguments or authorities relied upon are not recorded in the judgment). Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the assessee was not entitled to the set off. (Specific arguments or authorities relied upon are not recorded in the judgment).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 72A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.557 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.06.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.557 of 2016 M/s.TTK Healthcare Ltd 6, Cathedral Road Chennai – 600 086.

... Appellant Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – III (2), New Block, 4th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, dated 02.07.2013 passed in I.T.A.No.1897/Mds/11. For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan

Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mrs.V.Pushpa Standing Counsel Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.557 of 2016 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 02.07.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1897/Mds/11 for the assessment year 2004-05. The above appeal has been admitted on 10.08.2016 on the following Substantial Question of Law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that appellant is not entitled to set off the carried forward depreciation of the amalgamating companies in terms of provisions of Sec.72 A read with Rule 9 C?” 2. We have heard Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.557 of 2016 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Question of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct 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. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 03.05.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.] mkn 22.06.2021 Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.557 of 2016

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes

To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – III (2), New Block, 4th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.557 of 2016 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.557 of 2016

22.06.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 72A

All 93 judgments and leading authorities on Section 72A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →