M/S.india Japan Lighting Limited, Aalim Centre, 82, Dr.radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.03.2021CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVITax Case Appeal No.652 of 2017 M/s.India Japan Lighting Limited,Aalim Centre, 82, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.... AppellantVs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Large Tax Payer Unit,Chennai. ... Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras"D" Bench, dated 06.09.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.245/Mds/2013,preferred against the assessment order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit, Chennai,dated 16.10.2012, for the Assessment year 2008 -09. J U D G M E N T(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No 245/Mds/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2.The appellant has raised the following SubstantialQuestions of Law in the grounds of appeal: “1)Whether the Tribunal erred in not appreciatingthat appropriate adjustments were required as perSection 92C of the IT Act read with Rule 10B(3) of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ IT Rules in order to even out factors which materiallyaffect the profitability of the assessee as comparedto the comparable companies? 2)Whether the Tribunal erred in not providingappropriate adjustments for capacity underutilization,depreciation and extra ordinary costs includingfreight cost, rejection cost in order to ensurecorrect comparability analysis of assessee viz a vizcomparables as per Section 92C read with Rule 10B(3)of the IT Rules? 3)Whether the Tribunal erred in not rejecting asper Section 92C read with Rule 10B(3) of the IT Rulescertain comparables which were functionally differentto assessee (or) had high degree of transactions withtheir associated enterprises?” 3.We have heard Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel forthe appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 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.We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form – 3on 11.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seekspermission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 6.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. va https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench. Madras "D" Bench. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. +1cc to M/s.Subbraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate, S.R.No.19737.+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.19759.+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.19759. GMI(CO)CSR 30.04.2021 Tax Case Appeal No.652 of 2017