Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 6No v. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries (P) Limited,M.g.m Centre

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.07.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY TCA No.683 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai 600 034. ...Appellant Vs. M/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries (P) Limited,M.G.M Centre, No.1, 9th Street,Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.PAN: AAG CS 9705 F...Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, against theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Benchdated 11th January 2017 in ITA No.1577/Mds/2016,against order of the Commisisone rof Income Tax (Appeals)-15, ITA No.30/CIT(A)-15/14-15, PAN No. , AssessmentYear 2008-2009, order dated 02/03/2016 against order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle VI(3), Chennai, PAN No. , AssessmentYear 2007-08, order dated 27/02/2014. (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) The Court was held by Video Conference, as per theResolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges attheir respective residences and the counsel, staff of the Courtappearing from their respective residences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant RevenueMr.J.Narayanasamy and the learned counsel for the respondentAssessee, Mr.Sridhar. 3. By the impugned order dated 11.01.2017, the Tribunal, forthe Assessment Year 2008-09, has only remanded the case back tothe Assessing Authority for verification of the tax deducted atsource on the amount paid by the Assessee for the allegedcontract of tie up of manufacture. The amount of trade markusage fees and TDS in relation thereto is yet to be determined.The Tribunal had merely referred and relied upon the decision ofthe Kolkota High Court in CIT v. S.K.Telcriwal [361 ITR 432], inpara 6 of its order. Since the issue with regard to theapplicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been remandedback to the Assessing Authority, we do not find any substantialquestion of law to be arising in the present appeal filed by theappellant Revenue. It is only when the issue regarding theapplicability of Section 40(a)(ia) is decided by the authoritiesagain upon such remand, and if either of the parties can be saidto be aggrieved, then only, question of law if at all can besaid to be arising from the order of the Tribunal. It is notbrought to our notice that any such order of Assessing Authorityhas been passed after such remand or not. Therefore, in ouropinion, from the present order of the ITAT by which a remandhas been made to the Assessing Authoirty, on the issue involvedin the present case, we do not find any substantial question oflaw arising within the meaning of Section 260A of the Act. 4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without answeringthe questions of law raised in the said appeal. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai. Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner Income Tax Company Circle VI (3), Chennai. Company Circle VI (3), Chennai. 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. 4.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Chennai. Chennai. TCA No.683 of 2017pp[co]srg 21/10/2020