M/S. TTK HEALTHCARE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions 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 that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of the assessee's submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the reopening of assessment and the set-off of losses/depreciation were not adjudicated by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. TTK Healthcare Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "C" Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2003-04. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. During the pendency of the appeal, the Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee was issued Form-3 under this Act, and its counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the reopening of assessment as being valid (Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is entitled to set off the carried forward business/capital loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating companies in terms of provisions of Section 72A read with Rule 9C? Assessee's contentions: The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal in light of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, having been issued Form-3. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No.585 of 2017 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.585 of 2017 M/s.TTK Healthcare Ltd 6, Cathedral Road Chennai – 600 086.
... Appellant Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – 3(1) 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 "C" Bench, dated 25.11.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1641/Mds/16. 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.585 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 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1641/Mds/16 for the assessment year 2003-04. The above appeal has been admitted on 28.11.2017 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the reopening of assessment as being valid? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that appellant is entitled to to set off the carried forward business/capital loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating companies in terms of provisions of Sec.72A read with Rule 9C?” Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.585 of 2017 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. 3. 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 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. Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.585 of 2017 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
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – 3(1) Chennai – 600 034. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.585 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.585 of 2017
22.06.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 72A
- Ceat Limited, Mumbai vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 8146/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Neovantage Innovation Park Private Limited… vs ITO, Ward -16(3), HyderabadITA 1101/HYD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Ginza Industries Limited, MumbaiITA 902/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: Heard2 Jun 2026AY 2018-19
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Ginza Industries Limited, MumbaiITA 901/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: Heard2 Jun 2026AY 2017-18
- Manas Agro Industries and Infrastructure… vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 3(2)(1), MumbaiITA 5588/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2018-2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026