THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S.TTK HEALTHCARE LIMITED

T.C.A.Nos.86, 87 and 89 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos.86, 87 and 89 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant in all TCAs Versus M/s. TTK Healthcare Limited, No.6, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 086. ... Respondent in all TCAs Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 02.07.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.1783/Mds/2012, 1898 and 2030/Mds/2011. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel in all TCAs For Respondent : Mr.Venkatanarayanan for M/s Subbaraya Aiyar in all TCAs Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.86, 87 and 89 of 2016 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 02.07.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.1783/Mds/2012, 1898 and 2030/Mds/2011, relating to the respective assessment years 2009-10, 2008-09 and 2008-09. 2. By orders dated 24.02.2016, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law: TCA.No.86 of 2016:-

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who deleted the disallowance of claim made under work in progress which was adjusted against the opening reserves? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is bad when the Work in Progress is not an allowable expenditure falling under any of the sections Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.86, 87 and 89 of 2016 enunciated in Chapter IV of the Income Tax Act?" TCA.No.87 of 2016:-

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no cessation of liability under Section 41(1) when the assessee was not able to offer any explanation as to the existence and claims by the creditors? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance made on logo charges was revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure without noting that when the expenditure is incurred in the filed of fixed capital it is on capital account? (iii) The finding of the Tribunal is bad when as per clause 3 (c) of MOU the partner's contribution to TTK will make available the good will of TTK brand name and a joint owner of the assessee company the exploitation could be only treated as capital in nature and not revenue?" TCA.No.89 of 2016:-

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of expenses relating to the Medical Division of Waluj especially when the assessee has sold the entire Medical Division after which expenses relating to the said Division were claimed and Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.86, 87 and 89 of 2016 it was not a case of temporarily shut down?" 3. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in these appeals is less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 29.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No av Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.86, 87 and 89 of 2016 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle -III (2), Chennai 600 034. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.86, 87 and 89 of 2016 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av

T.C.A.Nos.86, 87 and 89 of 2016 29.08.2022 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis