Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. M/S Saipem Aban Drilling Co Pvt Ltdjanpriya Crest96, Pantheon Roadegmore, Chennai 600 008
High Court
07 Aug 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. M/S Saipem Aban Drilling Co Pvt Ltdjanpriya Crest96, Pantheon Roadegmore, Chennai 600 008
Date of order
07 Aug 2025
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. M/S Saipem Aban Drilling Co Pvt Ltdjanpriya Crest96, Pantheon Roadegmore, Chennai 600 008, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Placing on record such submission, the appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
TCA No.88 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICEAND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
TCA No.88 of 2013
Commissioner of Income TaxChennai.. Appellant
-vs-
M/s Saipem Aban Drilling Co Pvt LtdJanpriya Crest96, Pantheon RoadEgmore, Chennai 600 008.. Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 31.05.2012 passed in ITA No.543/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “D” Bench, Chennai for the Assessment Year 2005-06.
For Appellant: Mr.J.NarayanaswamySenior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Ms.Sonali for Mr.S.P.Chidambaramthrough VC
Page 1 of 4
TCA No.88 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by the Chief Justice)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue. Ms.Sonali for Mr.S.P.Chidambaram appears for the respondent/Assessee through VC.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submits
that it is a case having low tax effect. Therefore, in view of the Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, the appellant/Revenue does not wish to proceed with the matter, though the question of law proposed may be kept open for consideration in appropriate case.
3. Placing on record such submission, the appeal stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (SUNDER MOHAN, J.) 07.08.2025
Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Noss
Page 2 of 4
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Chennai
Page 3 of 4
TCA No.88 of 2013
Page 4 of 4
TCA No.88 of 2013THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ss
TCA No.88 of 2013
07.08.2025
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.