M/S. Caress Beauty Care Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - 1 Commissionerate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI M/s. Caress Beauty Care Products Private LimitedRepresented by its Authorised signatory,4[th] Floor, Gokul Arcade No.2, Sardar Patel Road,Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. ... Appellantvs. The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai - 1 Commissionerate,No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondent PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai dated 15.01.2013 passedin ITA.No.79/Mds/2011 for the Assessment Year 2006-07,preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai-1, Chennai -34, dated 25.11.2010 made in C.No. 218(5)/263/2010-11, against the order passed by AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I (3), Chennai,dated 03.12.2008, made in GIR/PAN.No. for theassessment Year 2006-2007. This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I..TA.No.79/Mds/2011 for the Assessment Year2006-07. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The appeal was admitted on 25.06.2013 on the followingSubstantial Question of Law: “ (i) Whether on a true interpretation ofsection 801B(3), the Appellate Tribunal isjustified in holding that for the purpose ofcomputing the deductions under Section 801B of theAct, the industrial undertaking should remain asmall scale undertaking in each previous year whenthe deduction is claimed under the provisions ofthe Act? (ii) Whether the ITAT is right in holding thatthe CIT was justified in invoking the provisions ofSection 23 ignoring the settled legal position thatwhere two views are possible in respect of anissue, an order passed by the Assessing Officercannot be considered to be an erroneous orderprejudicial to the interest erst of the Revenue ?” 3. We have heard Ms. G. Janani, learned counsel forthe appellant and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Standing Counsel,learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Question of Law framed for consideration onaccount of certain subsequent developments. The Government ofIndia enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and formatters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act ofthe Parliament received the assent of the President on 17[th]March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March2020. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form– 3 on 29.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellantseeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counselfor the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs.Sd/-Assistant Registrar //True Copy// 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai “A” Bench 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai - 1 Commissionerate, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 1 Commissionerate, Chennai - 600 034. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I (3), Chennai. Company Circle I (3), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 6360 Tax Case Appeal No.366 of 2013 SSV(CO)GN(26/02/2021)