SHRI. K. UMAIR AHMED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O

TCA.No.609 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.08.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN TCA.No.614 of 2019 Shri K.Umair Ahmed PAN: AAHPU 4907D .. Appellant

Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle - 6(1), Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondent Prayer : Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 28.02.2018 in I.T.A.No.2111/Mds/2017 for the assessment years 2004-05. For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Respondent : M/s.R.Hemalatha Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This appeal by the assessee under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order dated 28.02.2018 in I.T.A.No.2111/Mds/2017 for the assessment years 2004-05. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.609 of 2019 2.The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law : “1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s.80RRA of the Act overlooking the purposive interpretation and further overlooking the substance theory? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that a person with specialized knowledge in a particular industry and experience in managing that business is not covered within the definition of Technician as per Explanation (c)(iii) under Section 80RRA? 3.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that it is necessary for a technician to be physically outside India for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s.80RRA for any service rendered by him outside India? 4.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in reaching conclusion on the furnishing of Form No.10H along with the return of income as mandatory requirement to fortify the claim for deduction u/s.80RRA of the Act? 5.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in re-estimating the disallowance of expenses charged under various heads while recording perverse findings of facts and further while accepting the incurring of such expenses wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business in terms of Section 37(1) of the Act? 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.609 of 2019 3.We have elaborately heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and M/s.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue. 4.On a careful consideration of the materials placed before this Court and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels, we are of the considered view that the issue agitated before us is entirely factual. The claim made by the assessee that he is entitled to the benefit under Section 80RRA of the Act was considered for its correctness by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal and concurrently they held against the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee did not produce any material to establish that he is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80RRA of the Act. 5.For the above reason, we find that there is no question of law much less the substantial question of law arisen for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 27.08.2019 Speaking order: Yes/No Index: Yes/No cse 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.609 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. and V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. cse

To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle - 6(1), Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras, 'B' Bench, Chennai. TCA.No.614 of 2019 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in