Chennai - 600 002 v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range Vii

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.01.2022 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANAND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.167 of 2009 M/s. Macmillan India Limited, 21, Pattullos Road, Chennai - 600 002. ...Appellant/Respondent Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range VII, Chennai. ...Respondent/Appellant Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,“C” Bench Chennai, dated 08.10.2003 in I.TA.No.47/Mds/94preferred against the order dated 28.10.1993 in ITA No.24/93-94/SR VII on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)II Madras 600034 filed against the Assessment order of theDeputy Commissioner(IT) Special Range VII, Madras dated23.03.1993 for the Assessment year 1990-91. J U D G M E N T (Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant /Assessee, challenging the order dated 08.10.2003 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, inI.TA.No.47/Mds/94, relating to the assessment year 1990-91. 2.By order dated 22.04.2009, this court admitted theaforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questionsof law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in concluding thatthe receipts does not arise for eligible business forthe purpose of section 32AB, which is against theratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case ofAppollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) wherein the profits ofthe eligible business for the purpose of Section 32ABhas been explained? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe above receipts cannot be considered as businessincome without appreciating that the profits of theeligible business or profession has to be computedunder section 32AB(3) in accordance with part II andPart III of the Sixth Schedule of the Companies Actand not in accordance with the provisions of IncomeTax Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the tribunal ought to have appreciated that anyincome not derived from types of business excludedunder clause (a) and (b) of sub-section 2 of Section32AB shall constitute income from eligible businessfor the purpose of Section 32AB as per the ration ofthe decisions of the Apex Court in the case of AppolloTyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) and the decision of thejurisdictional High Court in the case of CarborandumUniversal Ltd (265 ITR 372)". 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learnedcounsel for the appellant sought permission of this Court towithdraw this Tax Case Appeal. He has also filed a memo dated04.01.2022 to that effect. 4.Recording the above submission and the memo filed on theside of the appellant, permission is granted to withdraw thecase and accordingly, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed aswithdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law fordetermination in an appropriate case. No costs. av 1. The Registrar, The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range VII, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals II, Madras. RSI(CO)KKV/01/02/2022 T.C.A.No.167 of 2009