The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. M/S. R.r.industries Limitedrr Towers Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estateguindychennai 600 032
High Court
28 Jun 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. M/S. R.r.industries Limitedrr Towers Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estateguindychennai 600 032
Date of order
28 Jun 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. M/S. R.r.industries Limitedrr Towers Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estateguindychennai 600 032, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether in the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the charges paid forvaluation of real estate portfolio are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ revenue in nature and to be allowed asbusiness expenditure?2.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 28/6/2016
C O R A M
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.ManikumarandThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar
Tax Case Appeal No.562 of 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai....Appellant Vs
M/s. R.R.Industries LimitedRR Towers Thiru-vi-ka Industrial EstateGuindyChennai 600 032....Respondent
Prayer:Appeal filed against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 17/2/2012 inITA No.1256/Mds/2011 against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) V, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 34 inITA No.111/10-11 dated 28.04.2011.
For appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax.For respondent : No appearance
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J)This Appeal has been filed against the order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Madras, dated 17/2/2012.
2. The substantial questions of law raised in the instantappeal are:-
“1. Whether in the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the charges paid forvaluation of real estate portfolio are
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
revenue in nature and to be allowed asbusiness expenditure?2. Whether in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that consultancy fee paidfor prospective IPO are to be treated asbusiness expenditure merely because the IPOwas shelved?”
3. Mr.T.RaviKumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel forIncome Tax submitted that the tax implication in the instantappeal is less than the ceiling limit fixed by the Circularbearing No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015. He further submittedthat as per the Circular, Tax Case Appeal has been instructed tobe withdrawn.
4. Placing on record the above submissions, whiledismissing the Tax Case Appeal No.562 of 2014, as withdrawn,substantial questions of law raised are left open. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mvs.
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras A Bench, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax V,121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai 34.
Tax Case Appeal No.562 of 2014
ks cokra 14.07.2016
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.