M/S.i.p.rings Ltd.,Arjay Apex Centre v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Company Circle – Ii(3),Chennai – 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA M/s.I.P.Rings Ltd.,Arjay Apex Centre,No.24, College Road,Chennai – 600 006. ...Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle – II(3),Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras "D" Bench, dated 26.09.2014 passed inI.T.A.No.729/Mds/2014, against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (A)-II, Chennai, dated 12.12.2013 for the AssessmentYear 2008-09 against the Assessment order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle -II(3), Chennai-34dated 27/12/2010. For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar PadmanabhanFor Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel (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 26.09.2014 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No.729/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2008-09. The above appeal has been admitted on 22.07.2015 on thefollowing Substantial Questions of Law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right inupholding the order of CIT (Appeals) treating 25% ofthe Royalty payment made towards right to use thetechnical know-how granted by the Non Resident asCapital in nature? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in treating 25% of theroyalty payment as capital expenditure under Section32(1) when the same is not owned by the appellant andtax was deductible at source on the ground thatpayment was for right to use and not for acquisitionof intangible asset? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court inthe case of Southern Switchgears v. CIT 232 ITR 359(SC) dealing with the initial year of setting up offactory is applicable to the facts of this case? 4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in notfollowing the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court inthe case of M/s.CIT Vs.IAEC Pumps Ltd. 232 ITR 316and CIT Vs. Panasonic Carbon India Ltd. (Mad) whichis applicable to the facts of the case ?” 2. We have heard Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.SubbarayaAiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant/assesseeand Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe respondent/Revenue. 3. 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3on 20.04.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seekspermission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarmknTo1. The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income-Tax (A)-II, Chennai.3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – II(3), Chennai – 600 034. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3on 20.04.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seekspermission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarmknTo1. The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income-Tax (A)-II, Chennai.3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – II(3), Chennai – 600 034. +1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate Sr.25768 Tax Case Appeal No.317 of 2015 ppa[co]srg 24/06/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/