Tca/285/2011 Of Commissioiner Of Income Tax v. M/S Tenneco Rc India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.12.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMARTax Case (Appeal) No.285 of 2011 Commissioner of Income TaxChennai. ... Appellant/Appellant-vs- M/s.Tenneco RC India Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Hydraulics Limited)No.22, SIPCOT Industrial Estate,Hosur – 635 126. ...Respondent/Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunalBench'A', Chennai, dated16.11.2010, inITA.No.1895/Mds/2009 for the assessment year 2003-04 preferredagainst the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals) III, Chennai -600034 dt. 30/09/2009 made in ITA. No.121/06-07/A.III for the Assessment year 2003-04 against theorder passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company order II(2), Chennai-34, dt.24/02/2006 made inAAACH8303E for the Assessment year 2003-04. For Appellant:M/s.V.PushpaFor Respondent:Mr.R.Kumar****** (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), isdirected against the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Bench ' A', Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "theTribunal") dated 16.11.2010, in ITA.No.1895/Mds/2009 for theassessment year 2003-04. 2.The appeal has been admitted by order dated 17.08.2011,on the following substantial question of law:-“Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was right in deleting the disallowance of intereston the advance given to the subsidiary company? 3.HeardM/s.V.Pushpa,learnedcounselfortheappellant/revenue and Mr.R.kumar, learned counsel for therespondent/assessee. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assesseesubmits that for the assessment year 1999-2000, the DivisionBench in TC(A).No.18 of 2010 dated 01.07.2013 has held in favourof the assessee. The operative portion of the order reads asfollows: “13.The Revenue does not dispute the fact thatthe advancing of funds by the assessee into thesister concern was in terms of the BIFR's order.That being the case, no useful purpose would beserved by again directing a remand on the merits ofthe claim of the assessee.” 5.Following the same, this tax case appeal is dismissed.Consequently, the substantial question of law is answeredagainst the appellant. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) cse To //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Chennai -34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle II(2), Chennai -34. SR(CO) rrs 02/01/2019