THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S.WHEELS INDIA LTD,

PDF · subscribers
TCA/91/2016HC Madras08 July 2025Bench: Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that all substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that the assessee's counsel, Mr. Vijayaraghavan, submitted that the first question was covered by the judgments in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sintex Industries Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Ltd. The second question was covered by Commissioner of Income Tax v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore v. Precot Meridian Ltd. The third and fourth questions were covered by Commissioner of Income Tax-LTI, Chennai v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. and Evolv Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The revenue's counsel, Ms. Pushpa, agreed with these submissions. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The specific reasoning for each question's resolution by the Tribunal, as upheld by the High Court, is not detailed beyond the reliance on cited judgments.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (appellant/revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench (respondent/assessee). The appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Tribunal's order dated 30.04.2014 in ITA No.479/Mds/2013. The appeal concerns multiple issues related to disallowances and claims made by the assessee, M/s. Wheels India Ltd., for certain assessment year(s) which are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The High Court is considering four substantial questions of law framed on 03.02.2016.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide four substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance made under Section 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given that the assessee allegedly failed to prove the availability of interest-free funds for investment in tax-free income-earning assets, and the general pool of funds principle was applicable. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim for loss on account of unrealized exchange loss in respect of derivatives and restatement of forward contracts, considering these transactions might be speculative under Section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) concerning commission payments to a non-resident agent. 4. Whether the Tribunal's finding on the taxability of commission charges in India was correct, especially in light of Explanation 2 below Section 9(1)(iii) and the Explanation below Section 9(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were introduced with effect from 1.6.1976. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its counsel, argued that all substantial questions of law have been answered in its favour by various judgments. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Ms. Pushpa, Senior Standing Counsel, agreed with the assessee's counsel that the questions of law were covered by existing judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 8D(2)(ii),Section 43(5)(d),Section 40(a)(i),Section 9(1)(iii),Section 9(2),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.91 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN TCA NO. 91 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Appellant(s) Vs M/s.Wheels India Ltd, Padi, Chennai- 50 Respondent(s) Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in ITA No.479/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench. For Appellant(s): Ms.V.Pushpa Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan For M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar and Padmanabhan __________ Page 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) T.C.A.No.91 of 2016

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) On 03.02.2016, following four substantial questions of law were framed. “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in deleting the disallowance made under Section 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the facts that the general pool of funds will apply in the present case, as the assessee has failed to discharge its onus in establishing that interest free funds were available and were invested in the assets to earn the tax free income? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing the assessee claim of loss on account of unrealized exchanged loss in respect of derivatives and on account of restatement of forward contract without appreciating the fact that the above transaction was speculative transaction as per the provisions of Section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) in respect of commission payment made to non resident agent? And (iv) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad, especially when as per Explanation 2 below Section 9(1)(iii) and Explanation below Section 9(2), which was introduced with effect from 1.6.1976 the commission charges are taxable in India?” __________ Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) T.C.A.No.91 of 2016

2.

Shri.Vijayaraghavan, submitted that all the questions of law have been answered in favour of the assessee by various judgments. 3. Ms.Pushpa, as an officer of the Court and in fairness agreed with Shri Vijayaraghavan. 4 (i) Shri. Vijayaraghavan submitted that the first question is covered by the following judgments.

(a) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sintex Industries Ltd.1

(b) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Ltd.2

(ii) Second question is covered by the following judgments.

(a) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd.3

(b) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore v. Precot Meridian Ltd.4 1 403 ITR 418 Guj 2

(2019) 307 CTR (SC) 121 3

(2009) 312 ITR 254 SC 4

(2020) 120 Taxmann.com 429 (Mad) __________ Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) T.C.A.No.91 of 2016

(iii) Third and fourth questions are covered by the following judgments. (a) Commissioner of Income Tax-LTI, Chennai v. M/s.Wheels India Ltd.5 (b) Evolv Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax6 5. Ms. Puspha agreed. 6. Therefore, all substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee. The Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (SUNDER MOHAN J.) 08-07-2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No ars/dk 5 MANU/TN/5586/2021 6 (2018) 407 ITR 72 (Mad) __________ Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) T.C.A.No.91 of 2016

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUNDER MOHAN

,J.

(ars/dk) To 1. M/s.Wheels India Ltd, Padi, Chennai- 50 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai. TCA NO. 91 of 2016 08.07.2025 __________ Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm )

More judgments on Section 8D(2)(ii)

All 36 judgments and leading authorities on Section 8D(2)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →