Loading High Court cases…
2,440 orders from the Madras High Court.
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The High Court held that nothing survived in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The reasoning was that the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings before the NCLT, and the Income-Tax Department had filed its claim within those proceedings. The Court noted that it was for the official liquidator to consider the Income-Tax Department's claim and for the NCLT to pass appropriate orders. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left unanswered, and the tax case appeal was closed. No specific finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the insolvency proceedings.
Both the appellant (revenue) and the respondent (assessee) acceded to the position that the issues raised in the appeal were covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central – III v HCL Technologies Limited. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The High Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedent set by the Supreme Court. The reasoning is that the Supreme Court's ruling clarifies the computation of export turnover and total turnover for Section 10A deductions, specifically addressing the inclusion or exclusion of expenses like freight and insurance. The ratio decidendi is that where such expenses are incurred for earning the export turnover, they should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of calculating the deduction under Section 10A, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Act and its explanations. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue's counsel that the Department did not wish to pursue the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Tax Case (Appeal) was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law were left open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT or the grounds of appeal were not discussed or decided on merits.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department that the Income-Tax Department did not wish to pursue the Tax Case (Appeals) for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. This withdrawal was sought on account of low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. Accordingly, the Court dismissed both Tax Case (Appeals) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded.
The High Court decided the issues as follows: Issue (i): The Tribunal was right in allowing the expenditure on replacement of dies and moulds. The Court held that dies and moulds are parts of the machinery and their replacement is necessary for maintaining the product specifications. This was decided in favour of the assessee, following the ratio in CIT vs. TVS Motors Ltd. Issue (ii): The Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction under Section 35(1)(iv). The Court confirmed the Tribunal's finding, based on CIT vs. Rane Break Linings Ltd., and answered this in favour of the assessee. Issue (iii): The Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction under Section 35(2AB). The Court, agreeing with both counsel, held that this issue was covered by an earlier decision in the assessee's own case (CIT vs. TVS Motor Company Ltd.) and answered it in favour of the assessee. Issue (iv): The Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction under Section 80IA on notional profit from captive power generation. Following TC(A) Nos.68 to 70 of 2010 and CIT vs. TANFAC Industries Ltd., the Court answered this in favour of the assessee. Issue (v): The Tribunal was right in allowing the disallowance of agency commissions paid. The Court held this issue was covered by an earlier decision in the assessee's case, where the Tribunal had decided in favour of the assessee, and this order had attained finality. This was answered in favour of the assessee. Issue (vi): The Tribunal was right in holding that UPS and Voltage Stabilizer are entitled to depreciation. The Court, relying on CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nestle India Ltd., held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 60% as against 25% assessed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the assessee had claimed 80% initially but agreed to 60% based on precedents. Issue (vii): The Tribunal was not right in holding that depreciation on temporary construction is to be allowed at 100%. The Court restored the order of the Assessing Authority, holding that the applicable rate of depreciation for a parking shed (temporary structure) is 10%, as per TVS Motors Ltd. This issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Operative Directions: Questions (i) to (v) were answered in favour of the assessee. Question (vi) was answered allowing depreciation at 60%. Question (vii) was answered in favour of the Revenue. The Tax Case (Appeal) was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue that it did not wish to pursue the appeal for assessment year 2008-09 due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Tax Case (Appeal) was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Income-Tax Department) that the Department does not wish to pursue the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12. This decision was based on the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department that the Income-Tax Department did not wish to pursue the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 due to a low tax effect, citing Circular No. 9 of 2024. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law were left open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the Income-Tax Department does not wish to pursue the appeal for assessment year 2003-04 due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Tax Case (Appeal) was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law are left open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT or the amount in dispute were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel that the Income-Tax Department did not wish to pursue the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 and sought its withdrawal due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Accordingly, the Tax Case (Appeal) was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel that the Income-Tax Department did not wish to pursue the appeal for assessment year 2008-09. The reason cited for this withdrawal was the low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law were left open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department that the Income-Tax Department does not wish to pursue the appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12 due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeals) as withdrawn. The questions of law were left open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue's counsel that the Department did not wish to pursue the appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 due to low tax effect, citing Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No costs were awarded.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel that the Income-Tax Department did not wish to pursue the Tax Case (Appeal) for the assessment year 2008-2009 and sought withdrawal of the same on account of low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law were left open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were covered by its previous decision in M/s. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax. The Court reiterated the principles of statutory interpretation concerning non-obstante clauses, particularly when two special provisions are involved. It was held that Section 40A(7)(b), which specifically permits a deduction for a provision towards an approved gratuity fund, takes precedence over the more general provision of Section 43B. The Court found no conflict between Section 40A(7)(b) and Section 43B, as the former deals specifically with approved gratuity funds while the latter deals with gratuity funds in general terms. The Court relied on decisions from the Kerala High Court in Commonwealth Trust (I) Limited and the Delhi High Court in Bechtel India Private Limited, which supported the assessee's position. The Court concluded that Section 40A(7)(b) has an overriding effect over Section 43B in the case of an approved gratuity fund. Therefore, the questions were answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court recorded that the counsel for the appellant had instructions to withdraw the appeal and an endorsement was made by the learned counsel on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The questions of law were left unanswered. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court, upon recording the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department, allowed the withdrawal of the Tax Case (Appeal) for assessment year 2010-2011. The Court explicitly stated that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment also noted that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No costs were awarded. The specific reasoning for the dismissal is based on the Revenue's stated intention to withdraw due to low tax effect as per the circular. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department that the Income-Tax Department does not wish to pursue the Tax Case (Appeal) for the assessment year 2011-2012 and seeks withdrawal of the same on account of low tax effect, as per Circular bearing No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. Recording this submission, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law are left open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel that the Income-Tax Department did not wish to pursue the Tax Case (Appeals) concerning assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The withdrawal was sought due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeals) as withdrawn. The judgment explicitly stated that the questions of law were left open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT or the amount in dispute were not discussed as the appeals were withdrawn.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel that the Income-Tax Department did not wish to pursue the Tax Case (Appeal) for assessment year 2009-2010 and sought withdrawal of the same due to low tax effect, as per Circular No.9 of 2024. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The judgment explicitly stated that the questions of law were left open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed both Tax Case Appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the tax effect for Assessment Year 1994-1995 was Rs. 27,25,756/- and for Assessment Year 1995-1996 was Rs. 52,29,442/-. These amounts were found to be below the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the basis of this monetary policy. No costs were awarded. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the original appeals before the Tribunal.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue that it did not wish to pursue the appeals due to low tax effect, citing Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed both Tax Case (Appeals) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) on the ground of low tax effect. The Court observed that the tax demand of Rs.5,19,803/- fell below the monetary limit stipulated in Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. Therefore, the appeal was not entertained on its merits. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel that the Income-Tax Department did not wish to pursue the appeal for Assessment Year 2009-2010 due to a low tax effect, citing Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department. The Department expressed its intention not to pursue the appeal concerning Assessment Year 2005-2006, requesting withdrawal on the grounds of low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. In light of this submission, the Tax Case (Appeal) was dismissed as withdrawn. The questions of law were expressly left open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No costs were awarded.