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

PDF · subscribers
TCA/586/2017HC Madras23 June 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, provided a mechanism for resolving disputed tax matters. The assessee's counsel informed the court that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act and requested permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, for the assessment year 2011-2012. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The dispute pertains to a disallowance made under Section 37 of the Act, allegedly relying on a CBDT Circular that the assessee contended could not have retrospective effect. The High Court noted that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted to provide for the resolution of disputed tax matters. The assessee's counsel informed the court that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act and 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 law in not adjudicating whether a disallowance under Section 37, made by relying on a CBDT Circular which could not have retrospective effect, could be made by an order under Section 154 of the Act? (Assessee's contention: The Tribunal failed to decide this issue. The disallowance was based on a CBDT Circular which should not have retrospective effect and thus could not be made via a Section 154 order.) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in considering the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 which could not have retrospective effect? (Assessee's contention: The Tribunal erred in considering the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 as it lacked retrospective effect.) Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 37,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.06.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.14636 of 2017 M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited, 6, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 086. PAN : AABCT3312J

... Appellant v.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate 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.1642/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkat Narayanan For Respondent : Mrs.S.Premalatha

for Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.586 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.1642/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2011-2012. 2. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law in the above appeal:- " 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not adjudicating whether the disallowance under Section 37, by relying on CBDT Circular which could not have retrospective effect, could be made by an order under Section 154 of the Act? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in considering the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 which could not have retrospective effect?" 3. We have heard Mr.R. Venkat Narayanan, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mrs.S.Premalatha for Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017 4. 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. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 10.06.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.] mtl 23.06.2021 Index : Yes/No

(1/2)

Internet : Yes Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017

To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 3 (1), Chennai - 600 034. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R.HEMALATHA, J. mtl Tax Case Appeal No.586 of 2017

23.06.2021

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

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →