M/S.ttk Healthcare Ltd6, Cathedral Roadchennai – 600 086 v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcompany Circle – Iii (2),Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.06.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.358 of 2012 M/s.TTK Healthcare Ltd6, Cathedral RoadChennai – 600 086. ...Appellant Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle – III (2),Chennai. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras "C" Bench, dated 13.10.2011 passed inI.T.A.No.795/Mds/10 against the order of the CIT(A)-III,Chennai-34 in ITA No.574/09-10/A-III dated 25.03.2010 for theAssessment Year 2006-07 as against the Assessment order of theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III(4),Chennai dated 31.12.2008. For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For Respondent : Mrs.V.Pushpa Standing Counsel (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No.795/Mds/10 for the assessment year 2006-07. The above appeal has been admitted on 01.02.2013 on thefollowing Substantial Questions of Law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin law in holding that the non-recoverable earnestmoney deposits which were written off is not anallowable deduction ? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin law in holding that the conversion charges paidis to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) for nondeduction of TDS? 3.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could be made in respect of amounts paid andnot in respect of the amounts which are payable? 4.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin law in holding that appellant is not entitledto set off carried forward business/capital lossand unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamatingcompanies in terms of provisions of Sec.72A readwith Rule 9 C?” 2. We have heard Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.SubbarayaAiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant/assesseeand Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent/Revenue. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions 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. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issuedwith Form-3 on 03.05.2021 and the learned counsel for theappellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw theappeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counselfor the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. //True copy// Sd/-Assistant RegistrarSub Assistant Registrar mkn To 1.The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III(4), Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle – III (2), Chennai. Tax Case Appeal No.358 of 2012 PPA(CO)GMY(22/07/2021)