M/S.simpson & General Finance Co Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Company Circle Vi (3) Chennai 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 31/8/2016 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.257 of 2016 M/s.Simpson & General Finance Co LtdNo.861/862 Anna SalaiChennai 600 002.... Appellant/AppellantVs The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle VI (3)Chennai 600 034.... Respondent/Respondent Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai dated 30/6/2015 in ITANo.2844/Mds/2014, against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) VI, Chennai-34, dated 30.09.2014 in I.T.A.No.1446/13-14/ A-VI, for the Assessment Year 2010-11, against the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI(3), Chennai dated25.03.2010 in PAN/GIR.No.Si 22/ for the AssessmentYear 2010-11. Challenge in this Tax Appeal, is to an order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.2844/Mds/2014, dated30/6/2015, for the assessment year 2010 – 2011. 2. Substantial questions of law raised in the instant TaxCase Appeal are as follows:-“1. Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in law in holding that in the case of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “Finance Lease” transaction the entire leaserental should be offered as income contraryto the Accounting Standard – 19 dealing withaccording of leases issued by the Instituteof Chartered Accountants of India? 2. Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in not directing the assessingOfficer to consider that in the case offinancial lease only the interest incomeaccrued to assessee should be taxed and notthe entire lease rental as assessed by himand consequentially withdraw the claim ofdepreciation on leased assets? 3. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in not appreciating that as perSection 14 A only the actual expenditureincurred in relation to income which doesnot form part of total income shall bedisallowed?4. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in confirming the ad hocdisallowance of the estate expenses ascapital expenditure?” 3. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing,Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, learned counselfor the appellant submitted that the substantial questions oflaw Nos.1 and 2 have been answered against the assessee and theissues are now pending before the Supreme Court. He furthersubmitted that as the amount involved in Section 14 A of theIncome Tax Act is less, substantial questions of law Nos.3 and 4raised in the instant Tax Case Appeal No.257 of 2016 are notpressed and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 4. Placing on record the above, Tax Case Appeal No.257 of2016 is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mvs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle VI (3) Chennai 600 034. Company Circle VI (3) Chennai 600 034. +1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate, S.R.No.49446 Tax Case Appeal No.257 of 2016 CTK(CO)CA(19/09/2016)