Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.spencer & Co. Ltd., 769, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI TAX CASE APPEAL NO.150 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ... AppellantVs. M/s.Spencer & Co. Ltd.,769, Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, dated 17.04.2015 passed inI.T.A.No.1731/Mds/2012. Against the Appellate Order and grounds of Decision passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-V, Chennai dated 14.06.2012made in CIT(A)-V/ITA.No.320/10-11, and Against the Assessment order passed by the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI(4) Chennai, dated29.12.2010 made in PAN/GIR.No. . J U D G M E N T(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No.1731/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following Substantial Questionsof Law in the above appeal: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe assessee is entitled for the claim of depreciationon the alleged expenditure incurred in building thebrand (Spencer) when the assessee had not incurred anycost towards acquiring the brand and when the assesseehad not substantiated the basis of the valuation/expenditure incurred for the purpose of the said brand. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe assessee is entitled for deduction of theexpenditure incurred towards the licence fee paid toRPG Enterprises Ltd. 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatRule 8D is prospective in nature and is not applicableto the Asst.Year 2007-08? 4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe assessee had not incurred any expenditure towardsearning the exempt dividend income and consequently nodisallowance can be made u/s.14-A?” 2. We have heard Mr.J.Naryanaswamy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learnedcounsel for the respondent/assessee. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on accountof certain subsequent developments. The Government of Indiaenacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of theParliament received the assent of the President on 17[th] March2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March 2020. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submittedthat the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme andthat the respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–3 on 09.02.2021.that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme andthat the respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–3 on 09.02.2021. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3,nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for therespondent/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mknTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench , Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-V,Chennai.3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle VI (A),Chennai.Tax Case Appeal No.150 of 2017EV(CO)CS/01/04/2021