Tca/249/2014 Of T.v.sundaram Iyengar &Sons Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVANAND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD TCA.NO.249 OF 2014 T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & sons Ltd., 7-B, West Veli Street, Madurai - 625 001.PAN ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income - Tax, Madurai. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,“C” Bench, Chennai, dated 28.08.2013 in I.T.A.No.833/Mds/2012,against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–I,Madurai, dated 31.01.2012 in I.T.A.No.0127/07-08, PAN No. for the assessment year 2005 – 06 and against theJoint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 1, Chennai,I.T.A.No.833/MDS/2012 for the assessment year 2005 – 06. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant /assessee, challenging the order dated 28.08.2013 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, inI.T.A.No.833/Mds/2012, relating to the assessment year 2005-2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.By order dated 24.03.2015, this court admitted theaforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questionsof law: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is justified in law in confirmingthe disallowane under Section 14A of the Act for theassessment year 2005-06 to 2008-09 to the extent of 50%of the relief granted by the CIT (Appeals)? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and having regard to section 14A of the Act andespecially in view of its findings that the lowerauthorities have nowhere recorded (dis)satisfactionabout the correctness of the accounts of the assessee,the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that stillthe disallowance must be made on a reasonable basis andin confirming the disallowance at 50% of thedisallowance confirmed by the CIT (Appeals)?(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming thedepreciation allowance on UPS and Voltage Stabilizer at25% as against 80% claimed by the assessee?" 3.The learned counsel for the appellant / assessee submittedthat during the pendency of this tax case appeal, the assesseehas filed the requisite Forms 1 and 2 under Section 4 of theDirect Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which were accepted andForm 3 was issued to them on 12.04.2021 by the Income TaxDepartment. Therefore, the learned counsel sought permission ofthis court to withdraw this appeal and has also filed a memo tothat effect. 4.Recording the submissions and the memo so filed on theside of the appellant, this tax case appeal is dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, 2. The Commissioner of Income - Tax, Madurai.3. The Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - I, Chennai.4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- I, Madurai.+1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.22615+1cc to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No.23708 TCA.No.249 of 2014 AD(CO)RLP(05/05/2022)