Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.vanishitalspat Udyog Pvt. Ltd
High Court
18 Nov 2024 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.vanishitalspat Udyog Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
18 Nov 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.vanishitalspat Udyog Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Recording the same, the present appeal stands dismissed as Low Tax Effect.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMARAND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
T.C.A.No.237 of 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3121, Nungambakkam High RoadChennai 600 034..Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Vanishitalspat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.C/o. N D Rajagopal & Co.No.14, Rani Annadurai StreetMandaveli, Chennai - 600 028PAN: AABCV9652P...Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras "B" Bench, dated 21.10.2022 in I.T.A.No.2934/Chny/2019.
For the Appellant:Mr.J.NarayanasamySenior Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)The substantial questions of law raised in the present tax
case appeal are:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case the ITAT was right in dismissing the departmental appeal without appreciating the factual aspects of the case in the proper perspective?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in not appreciating the fact that the evidence provided by the assessee before the CIT(A) are not sufficient and do not explain the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction of the loan creditor as required under Sec.68 of the Act?
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT failed to consider that the CIT(A) had admitted the confirmation letters at face value without verifying the creditors himself even though he had "conterminous powers" as that of the Assessing Officer, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225(SC)?
2. It is submitted by Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue that the present Tax Case Appeal is covered under the Low Tax Effect as per the recent Circular dated 17.09.2024, in Circular No.9/2024.
T.C.A.No.237 of 2024
3. Recording the same, the present appeal stands dismissed as Low Tax Effect. The questions of law raised in this appeal are kept open to be decided at the later point of time. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J) 18.11.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.237 of 2024
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDC. SARAVANAN, J.(drm)
T.C.A.No.237 of 2024
18.11.2024
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.