PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. M/S.SCOPE INTERNATIONAL PVT
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were the same as those considered in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10, where the Revenue's appeal (TCA.No.369 of 2019) was dismissed by the High Court on 19.06.2019. As that judgment had become final and no appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court, the High Court found no material to deviate from its earlier decision. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'D' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2010-11 and concerns the assessee, M/s. Scope International Pvt. Ltd. (now Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited). The dispute revolves around the inclusion of surcharge and cess in Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit under Section 115JAA of the Act. The Revenue's appeal is based on substantial questions of law. Notably, the High Court observed that an appeal by the Revenue in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-10 (TCA.No.369 of 2019) was dismissed by the same court on 19.06.2019.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in directing the inclusion of surcharge and cess in MAT credit under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan [reported in (1972) 83 ITR 346], which was rendered in the context of Section 2 of the Act, whereas Section 115JAA of the Act was inserted subsequently with retrospective effect from 01.04.1997? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The High Court's decision appears to be based on its prior ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in including surcharge and cess in MAT credit under Section 115JAA. The Revenue also questioned the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. K. Srinivasan, arguing it was in the context of a different section (Section 2) and predated the insertion of Section 115JAA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.588 of 2019 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.588 of 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Chennai-34 ...Appellant Vs M/s.Scope International Pvt.Ltd. (presently known as Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited), Chennai-34. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 01.4.2019 made in ITA.No.1670/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, JSC For Respondent: Mr.SP.Chidambaram Judgment was delivered by
T.S.Sivagnanam,J
We have elaborately heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Junior Standing 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.588 of 2019 Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.SP.Chidambaram, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 01.4.2019 made in ITA.No. 1670/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in directing the inclusion of surcharge and cess in MAT credit under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act ? and ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.Srinivasan [reported in (1972) 83 ITR 346], which was rendered in the context of Section 2 of the Act whereas Section 115JAA of the Act was inserted subsequently with retrospective effect from 01.4.1997 ?” 4. It is not disputed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that in the assessee's own case, the Revenue filed an appeal in TCA.No.369 of 2019 before this Court in respect of the assessment for the year 2009-10 and that the said appeal was dismissed by us by judgment dated 19.6.2019. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.588 of 2019 5. Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 11(2), Kolkatta [reported in (2016) 72 Taxmann.com 239], which was not placed before us when the earlier appeal was heard. 6. In any event, the judgment rendered by us in TCA.No.369 of 2019 dated 19.6.2019 in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year has become final and the Revenue has not preferred any appeal. There is no material placed before this Court to show that the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against our judgment. Hence, we are inclined to follow the said decision in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year. 7. In the light of the above, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. The substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue. No costs. 16.8.2019 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.588 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.588 of 2019 16.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 115JAA
- Lupin Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 5860/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Myra Mall Management Company Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3360/MUM/2026[AY 2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2026
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Baramati Agro Limited, PuneITA 395/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
- Manu Vyapar Private Limited, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 4(1), KolkataITA 792/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed18 Aug 2026AY 2021-2022
- Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Ltd, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 757/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026