Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.tamil Nadu Small Industriescorporation Ltd.,Industrial Estate, Guindy,Chennai –

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.12.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI&THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH T.C.A.No.63 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellant/Respondent Vs. M/s.Tamil Nadu Small IndustriesCorporation Ltd.,Industrial Estate, Guindy,Chennai – 600032....Respondent/AppellantPAN:AAACT1239KPrayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,Madras'A'Bench,dated27.06.2014inI.T.A.No.450/Mds/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 andagainst the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Chennai-600 034, dated 20.12.2012 in I.T.A.No.423/2011-12for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 and against the order of theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-III (1)Chennai-34 dated 30.09.2009 in GIR No/PAN for theAssessment Year 2007-2008. For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel Assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiagarajan Standing Counsel for S.Ramesh Kuamr JUDGMENT (Made by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the order dated27.06.2014 of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal forAssessment Year 2007-08. The operative portion of the order ofthe learned Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference:-“14. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lowerauthorities. We have already held that interestpaid to Government of Tamil Nadu is not hit bythe provisions of Section 43B of the Act. In thecircumstances, we are of the considered view thatthis matter should go back to the AssessingOfficer to verify as to whether assessee paid theinterest of Rs.183.90 lakhs to Government ofTamil Nadu or to any other financial institutionor it is only a provision made. Needless to sayif this amount is paid to Government of TamilNadu, the provisions of Section 43B of the Acthave no application to such payments. TheAssessing Officer shall examine the issue afreshin accordance with law after providing adequateopportunity to the assessee.15. In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes.” 2. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the RevenueMr.M.Swaminathan submitted that he has verified with theAssessing Authority that so far he has not passed any order uponthe remand by the learned Tribunal under the order impugnedbefore us. 3. Against the remand order of the learned Tribunal, we donot find any substantial question of law to be arising in thepresent case and therefore, the Assessing Authority may takeaction in accordance with law in pursuance of the remand orderof the learned Tribunal. 4. The Tax Case Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 034. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle -III (1), Chennai-600 034. 4. The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600032. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600032. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.41054+1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate Sr.40905 T.C.A.No.63 of 2015 nr[co]srg 08/01/2021