Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii,Chennai v. M/S.rajkumar Impex Pvt. Ltd.,B 603, Keshav Dugar Apartments,1, East Avenue,Kessva Perumal Puram,R.a.puram, Chennai – 600 028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.12.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANAND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.905 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax III,Chennai. ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. M/s.Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Ltd.,B 603, Keshav Dugar Apartments,1, East Avenue,Kessva Perumal Puram,R.A.Puram, Chennai – 600 028. ... Respondent/Appellant Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "B" Bench, dated 09.04.2009 passed inI.T.A.No.199/Mds/2008, Assessment Year 2003-04 against the orderof the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai-34, videITA No.62/2006-07 dated 15.11.2007, made against the AssessmentOrder of the Income Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle-V(3),Chennai, dated 31.03.2006, for the Assessment Year 2003-04, PANNo./GIR No.AAACR35773. For Appellant : Mr.T.RavikumarSenior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkata Narayananfor M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant /Revenue, challenging the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench Chennai ('the Tribunal',for brevity) in I.T.A.No.199 /Mds/2008 for the Assessment Year2003-04. 2.The above appeal was admitted on 05.10.2009 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee was entitled fordeduction under section 80IA on the disallowance madeunder section 40A(3) even though such disallowancecould not be considered as income 'derived' from theeligible industrial undertaking, in the light of thedecisions of Supreme Court in Cambay Electric SupplyIndustrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(113 ITR 84), Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissionerof Income Tax (262 ITR 278) and Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that while computing the deductionunder Section 80HHC, the deduction allowed underSection 80IA need not be reduced from the businessprofits, ignoring the provisions of Section 80IA(9)?" 3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, thelearned counsel appearing for the respondent / assesseesubmitted that during the pendency of this tax case appeal, theassessee has availed the benefit conferred under the Direct TaxVivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and filed necessary declarations,which were accepted and Form 5 / order for full and finalsettlement of tax arrears, was also issued by the Income taxdepartment, on 06.05.2021. The learned counsel has also filedForm 5 dated 06.05.2021 to that effect. 4.The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel forthe respondent/assessee has also been fairly conceded by thelearned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. 5.In view of the subsequent development, this court is ofthe opinion that nothing survives for adjudication in thisappeal. Recording the submission so made by the learned counselon either side, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy// av Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai – 34.4. The Income Tax Officer (OSD) Company Circle – V(3), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.62427 +1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No.63656 T.C.A.No.905 of 2009 AK-II(CO)SU(27/12/2021)