M/S Eid Parry India Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.02.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.208 of 2012 M/s.EID Parry (India) Limited, 'Dare House', #234, NSC Bose Road, Chennai - 600 001.

... Appellant Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai.

... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "B" Bench, dated 02.08.2011 passed in I.T.A.No.415/Mds/2010.

And against the order of the commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals), Large taxpayer unit, Chennai dated 24/02/2010 made in ITA No.63/08-09/LTU(A) against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai dated 29/12/2008 U/S.143

(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2004-05.

For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "B" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.415/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2004-

2005. The above appeal has been admitted on 13.08.2012 on the following Substantial Questions of Law:

"1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest receipt on bank deposits cannot constitute business income for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that contribution made to Employees Recreation & Sports Club is not an allowable deduction under Section 40A(9) of Income Tax Act, 1961?

3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the computation of Long Term Capital Gains by replacing the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 adopted by the Appellant based on the report of an independent valuer with the guideline value provided by the Sub Registrar?"

2. We have heard Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.

3. 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.

4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 03.02.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal.

5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

mkn To

1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "B" Bench 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Large Taxpayer unit, Chennai.

+1 cc to M/s.T.Ravikumar, Advocate Sr.No. 11074 +1 cc to M/s.M.P.Senthil kumr, Advocate Sr.No. 11304 Tax Case Appeal No.208 of 2012 GP(CO) RMP(16/03/2021)