Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,Neyveli – 607 801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal Nos.130 and 131 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellantin all appeals Vs. ...Respondent in all appeals M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,Neyveli – 607 801. Tax Case Appeals in Nos.130 and 131 of 2016 filed underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, dated26.06.2015, passed in I.T.A.Nos.529/Mds/2006 and 222/Mds/2009respectively. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, 121, M.G.Road, Chennai 34 made in ITA No.154/2005-06 date 21.11.2005, Assessment year 2002-03 Appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Company Range IV, Chennai 34 made in PANAAACN1121C/NE-65 dated 29/03/2005, Assessment year 2002-03 Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, 121, M.G.Road, Chennai-34 made in ITA No.52/2002-03dated 31/03/2003, Assessment year 2000-01 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) The above appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), aredirected against the order, dated 26.06.2015, passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, ('theTribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.Nos.529/Mds/2006 and222/Mds/2009 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2000-01respectively. 2.The above appeals have been admitted on 08.03.2016 on thefollowing Substantial Questions of Law: Common questions of law in T.C.A.Nos.130 and 131 of 2016 : 1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified in relying onthe amendment to Section 80IA made by Finance Act,1999, while allowing 100% deduction, even though theassessee had commenced its operation in the year 1994-95, when the position of law was different? 2.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad byapplying the amended provisions of law by extendingthe benefit retrospectively, which goes against theprinciple of strict interpretation of machineryprovisions?”T.C.A.No.131 of 2016 : “3.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in holding that therejuvenation of the BWEs and life extension programmeof thermal power station are allowable expenses ascurrent repairs, even though the said expenditure wasincurred after the life span of the plant andmachinery, which does not amount to preservation of analready existing machinery? 4.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that theexpenditure incurred in rejuvenation of BWEs and LEPsare allowable as revenue expenditure, especially whenthe assessee had capitalized the same in the books ofaccount?” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mrs.G.Janane forM/s.LakshmiKumaran,learnedcounselfortherespondent/assessee. 4. 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. 5.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 08.03.2021. 4. 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. 5.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 08.03.2021. 6.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3,nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeals.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for therespondent/assessee, the above Tax Case Appeals stand disposedof. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) V, 121, M.G.Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai 34 4.The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Range IV, Chennai 34. +1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar,Advocate Sr.No.23483+3 cc to Mr.Lakshmikumaran, Advocate, Sr.No.23764 T.C.A.Nos.130 and 131 of 2016 SR II(CO)KKV/21/06/2021