M/S. P.S. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU and vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/878/2016HC Madras15 September 2025Bench: Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The High Court did not decide any specific issue on merits but relied on the Supreme Court's precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by P.S.Govindaswamy Naidu & Son's Charities (the Assessee) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “D” Bench, dated 12.06.2015 in ITA No.2538/Mds/2014. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Company Ward-1, Coimbatore (the Revenue). The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the Tribunal's order is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the issue raised in the appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the Revenue regarding the issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.878 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.09.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN T.C.A.No.878 of 2016 P.S.Govindaswamy Naidu & Son's Charities, Avinash Road, Peelamedu Coimbatore. Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Company Ward-1, 1st Floor, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018. Respondent PRAYER

: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “D” Bench, dated 12.06.2015 in ITA No.2538/Mds/2014. ______________ Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 02:36:55 pm ) T.C.A.No.878 of 2016 For Appellant: Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan Ramamani For Respondent: Mr.J.Narayanasamy Sr. Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised in the appeal is squarely covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona1. 3. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 1 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 (SC) ______________ Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 02:36:55 pm ) T.C.A.No.878 of 2016 4. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

15.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr To: 1. The Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore. 3. The Income Tax Officer Company Ward-I, Coimbatore. ______________ Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 02:36:55 pm ) T.C.A.No.878 of 2016 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J. bbr

T.C.A.No.878 of 2016

15.09.2025 ______________ Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 02:36:55 pm )

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →