M/S.ashok Leyland Ltd.,19, Rajaji Salai,Chennai – 600 002 v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,Special Range - Ii,Chennai – 600 034
High Court
25 Jan 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
M/S.ashok Leyland Ltd.,19, Rajaji Salai,Chennai – 600 002 v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,Special Range - Ii,Chennai – 600 034
Date of order
25 Jan 2021
Assessment year(s)
1992-93
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S.ashok Leyland Ltd.,19, Rajaji Salai,Chennai – 600 002 v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,Special Range - Ii,Chennai – 600 034, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 2)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 90% of the rent and commission should be excluded from the profits of business under cl of (baa) to explanation 4 to Sec.
Decision: In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Tax Case Appeal No.1181 of 2008
M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd.,19, Rajaji Salai,Chennai – 600 002. ...Appellant Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,Special Range - II,Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras "A" Bench, dated 31.08.2007 passed in I.T.A.No.555/Mds/2000. For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar
For Respondent
: Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order
dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.555/Mds/2000 for the
assessment year 1992-93. The appeal was admitted on 21.08.2008 on the
following Substantial Questions of Law:
“ 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that scrap sales should be included in the total turn over for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC of theAct? (covered in favour of the Assessee in the decision reported in 297 ITR 107)?
2)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 90% of the rent and commission should be excluded from the profits of business under cl of (baa) to explanation 4 to Sec. 80HHC without considering the real nature of the receipts
(connected case in TC.No.1163/08)?
3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that while
computing deduction u/s 80M, 2% of dividend income should be reduced as notional expenditure incurred towards earning dividend income?
4)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to set off of short term capital loss arising out of purchase and sale tax free bonds of PSU against other short term capital gains?
5)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act in respect of interest income from the tax free securities/bonds?”
2. We have heard Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.
3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial
Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain
subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct
Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for
Tax Case Appeal No.1181 of 2008
resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the
President on 17[th] March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on
17[th] March 2020.
4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee has already been issued with Form – 3 on 31.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal.
5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] Index: Yes/No 25.01.2021 Internet: Yes (1/3)va
To
Page 4/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench
2.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Special Range - II,
Chennai – 600 034.
Tax Case Appeal No.1181 of 2008
M. DURAISWAMY, J. andT.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
17[th] March 2020.
4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee has already been issued with Form – 3 on 31.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal.
5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] Index: Yes/No 25.01.2021 Internet: Yes (1/3)va
To
Page 4/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench
2.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Special Range - II,
Chennai – 600 034.
Tax Case Appeal No.1181 of 2008
M. DURAISWAMY, J. andT.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
vaTax Case Appeal No.1181 of 2008(1/3)
25.01.2021
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.