The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.redington (India) Ltd., Spl Guindy House

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.03.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.32 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ... Appellant /RespondentVs. M/s.Redington (India) Ltd.,SPL Guindy House,95, Mount Road, Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. ... Respondent/Appellant ... Respondent/Appellant Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras "D" Bench, dated 26.06.2015 passed inI.T.A.No.1743/Mds/ 2011. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax Company circle V(3) Chennai 34 dated 30.09.11 PAN AABCR034710 in the assessment year 2007-2008.For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar J U D G M E N T(Delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J) This appeal filed by the Department under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal'for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1743/Mds/ 2011 for the Assessment Year2007-08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The above appeal was admitted on the followingSubstantial Questions of Law: “1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing theclaim of the assessee in relation to trade mark,license fee paid to its Associate Enterpriseespecially when the AE were not the registered ownerof the trade mark? 2)Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad inallowing the claim relating to trade marks especiallywhen assessee has been using the same from 1993onwards and the associated enterprises were formedonly in the year 2005? 3)Whether the finding of the Tribunal is properby deleting the additions made on account of corporatebank guarantee given by the assessee to its AEs on theground that it is not an international taxation? 4)Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse byholding that it is not an international transactionespecially when Sec.92 B of the Income Tax Act hadbeen amended by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from01.04.2012 included guarantee as an internationaltaxation?5)Whether the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe depreciation on temporary structure is to beallowed at 100% when the same issue for the earlieryear was decided at 10% only in the assessee's owncase for the assessment year 2006-07 which is againstthe rule of consistency?” 3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned senior standingcounsel for the appellant/ Revenue and Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan,learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Question of Law framed for consideration on accountof certain subsequent developments. The Government of Indiaenacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of theParliament received the assent of the President on 17[th] March2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March 2020. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the assessee has already filed the requisite Forms– 1 & 2 on 29.12.2020 under Section 4 of the Act. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Question of Law framed for consideration on accountof certain subsequent developments. The Government of Indiaenacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of theParliament received the assent of the President on 17[th] March2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March 2020. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the assessee has already filed the requisite Forms– 1 & 2 on 29.12.2020 under Section 4 of the Act. 6. In the light of the fact that the assessee has alreadyavailed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would beserved in keeping this appeal pending. At the same time,safeguarding the interest of the assessee in the event the orderto be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour ofthe assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposedof on the ground that the assessee has already filed therequisite Forms – 1 & 2 and the Department shall process theapplication at the earliest in accordance with the said Act andcommunicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. Asobserved, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appealin the event the ultimate decision to be taken on thedeclaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the saidAct is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made,the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting uponany application to be filed for condonation of delay inrestoration of the appeal and on such request made by theassessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, theRegistry shall place such petition before the Division Bench fororders. 7. With this observation, the Tax Case Appeal standsdisposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently,the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va To 1. The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V(3), Chennai-34. Company Circle V(3), Chennai-34. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. 4.The Section Officer, AE Section, High Court, Madras. 5.The Section Officer, Judicial Section, High Court, Madras.+1 cc to Mr.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.19762+1 cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No.19730Tax Case Appeal No.32 of 2017MG(CO)KM(16/04/2021)