M/S.MITSUBA SICAL INDIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
TCA/741/2018HC Madras05 January 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM6 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the application/declaration and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The appeal was disposed of with liberty granted to the assessee to restore it in the event the decision on the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration was not in its favour. If restoration was sought, the Registry was to entertain the miscellaneous petition without insisting on a condonation of delay application. As a result, the substantial questions of law framed were left open and not decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Mitsuba Sical India Private Limited, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2012-13. The substantial questions of law admitted for consideration by the High Court related to the Tribunal's decision on the adjustment of customs duty. The assessee had filed a declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 28.12.2020 and was awaiting orders. In light of this subsequent event, the High Court disposed of the appeal.

What were the issues?

The High Court admitted the appeal on three substantial questions of law for the assessment year 2012-13: 1. Whether the Tribunal's order was perverse in law and facts by holding that the Appellant had not demonstrated the need for customs duty adjustment? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the adjustment in respect of non-cenvatable customs duty made by the Appellant as per Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in including extraordinary expenditure, specifically non-cenvatable customs duty paid by the Appellant, which affected its operating margin (PLI) and not that of its comparables, thereby warranting an adjustment under the transfer pricing provisions of the Act read with Rules? The assessee contended that it had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue on these issues, other than the appearance of its counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 92C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.741 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.01.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.741 of 2018 M/s.Mitsuba Sical India Private Limited, (Previously Mitsuba Sical India Ltd.), Plot No.D-8, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi - 601201. ...Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), [Presently Corporate Circle 4(2)], 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 03.05.2018 made in ITA.No.400/CHNY/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant: Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan for Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.741 of 2018 JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

) This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 03.05.2018 made in ITA.No.400/CHNY/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appeal was admitted on 17.12.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal was perverse in law and facts by holding Appellant has not demonstrated need for customs duty adjustment? 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in rejecting the adjustment in respect of non-cenvatable customs duty of the Appellant made as per the provisions of S.92C of IT Act read with Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962? and 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in including 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.741 of 2018 extraordinary expenditure being the non- cenvatable customs duty paid by Appellant which will affect its operating margin (PLI) and not that of its comparables thereby warranting an adjustment as per the transfer provisions of the Act read with Rules?" 3. We have heard Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ assessee submits that the appellant/assessee has already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 28.12.2020 and is awaiting orders to be passed in Form No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the Competent Authority shall process the application/declaration in accordance with the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. The assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.741 of 2018 assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a miscellaneous petition for restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the substantial questions of law framed are left open. No costs. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 05.01.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment hvk 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.741 of 2018 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), [Presently Corporate Circle 4(2)], 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.741 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk TCA.No.741 of 2018 05.01.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 92C

All 1,769 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →