B AND A DIGI TACTICAL SOLUTI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that it was not necessary to decide the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court acknowledged the assessee's intention to avail the VVS Scheme. The Court directed the assessee to file Form No.I under the VVS Act and for the competent authority to process the application expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with the liberty granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration under the VVS Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The assessee, B & A Digi Tactical Solutions Private Limited, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute concerned whether expenditure incurred on leasehold premises was capital or revenue in nature, and if capital, the rate of depreciation applicable. The High Court heard arguments from both the assessee and the revenue. However, the proceedings were impacted by the introduction of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the appellant on the leasehold premises was capital in nature? (Question of law and fact, concerning the nature of expenditure). 2. Isn't the finding of the Tribunal that the expenditure incurred by the appellant on the leased premises is capital in nature and not a revenue expenditure perverse? (Question of law, challenging the perversity of the Tribunal's finding). 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital asset is not a temporary structure and therefore eligible for depreciation at the lower rate of 10% only? (Question of law and fact, concerning depreciation rate). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its counsel, submitted that it intended to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VVS Scheme) and was taking steps to file the necessary declaration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the substantial questions of law, as the proceedings were adjourned pending the assessee's action under the VVS Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260-A,Section 3,Section 4,Section 5,Section 6,Section 9
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.12.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 B & A Digi Tactical Solutions Private Limited, No.1, Lalithpuram Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. .. Appellant Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 121 Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. .. Respondent Prayer:- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' SMC Bench, Chennai, dated 28.08.2017 made in I.T.A.No.304/Mds/2017 relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. For Appellant : Mr.N.V.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing counsel and M/s.R.Hemalatha Senior Standing counsel 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 JUDGMENT [Order of the Court was made by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
, J.]
This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), challenging the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'A' SMC Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.304/Mds/2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration: “1. Whether on facts on circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the appellant on the lease hold premises was capital in nature? 2. Isn't the finding of the Tribunal that the expenditure incurred by appellant on the leased premises is capital is nature and not a revenue expenditure not perverse? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital asset is not a temporary structure and therefore eligible for depreciation at lower of 10% only?” 2. We have heard Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing counsel and M/s.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant / assessee, on instructions, submitted that the appellant / assessee intends to avail the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VVS Scheme' for brevity) and in this regard, the assessee is taking steps to file the application / declaration in Form No.I. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17th March 2020. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 5. In terms of the said Act, the assessee has been given an option to put an end to the tax disputes, which may be pending at different levels either before the First Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before the High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Under Section 2(j) “disputed tax” has been defined. In terms of Section 3, where a declarant means a person, who files a declaration under Section 4 on or before the last date files a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 in respect of tax arrears, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Income Tax Act or any other law for the time being in force, the amount payable by the declarant shall be determined in terms of Section 3(a-c) thereunder. 6. The First Proviso to Section 3 states that in case, where an Appeal or Writ Petition or Special Leave Petition is filed by the Income Tax authority on any issue before the Appellate Forum, the amount payable shall be one-half of the amount in the table stipulated in Section 3 calculated on such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The second proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The third proviso deals with cases, where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing of the declaration is as per Section 4 of the Act and the particulars to be furnished are also mentioned in the Sub Sections of Section 4. Section 5 of the Act deals with the time and manner of the payment and Section 6 deals with Immunity from initiation of proceedings in respect of offence and imposition of penalty in certain cases. Section 9 of the Act deals with cases, where the Act 3 of 2020 will not be applicable. 7. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration to be filed by the 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 Division Bench for orders. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 8. In the light of the above, we direct the appellant / assessee to file the Form No.I and the competent authority shall process the application / declaration in accordance with the Act and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date on which the declaration is filed in the proper form. 9. With this direction, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. (T.S.S.,J) (V.B.S.,J) 22.12.2020 Kak Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order To 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' SMC Bench, Chennai. T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. Kak T.C.A.No.96 of 2020 22.12.2020 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026