The Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. Miot Hospitals Ltd4/112 Mount Poonamallee Roadmanapakkamchennai 600 089
High Court
15 Jun 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. Miot Hospitals Ltd4/112 Mount Poonamallee Roadmanapakkamchennai 600 089
Date of order
15 Jun 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. Miot Hospitals Ltd4/112 Mount Poonamallee Roadmanapakkamchennai 600 089, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 15/6/2016
C O R A M
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.ManikumarandThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar
Tax Case Appeal No.800 of 2008
The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai....Appellant
Vs
Miot Hospitals Ltd4/112 Mount Poonamallee RoadManapakkamChennai 600 089....Respondent
Prayer:Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 4/4/2007 in ITA No.2747/Mds/2005.
For appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax.
For respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman- - - - - -
2
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J)
This Appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Madras, dated 4/4/2007.
2. The substantial questions of law raised in the instant appeal are:-
“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance under Section 40 A (2) of lease rental paid for machinery cannot be done unless the machinery is examined by an expert valuer, even though the written down value of the machinery was available?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that disallowance under
Section 40 A(2) cannot be made as no such
disallowance was made in the years 1995 –
96 and 1996 – 97?”
3. Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax submitted that the tax implication in the instant appeal is less than the ceiling limit fixed by the Circular bearing No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015. He further submitted that as per the Circular, Tax Case Appeals have been instructed to be withdrawn, subject to the matters covered under the circular.
4. Placing on record the above submissions, while dismissing the Tax Case Appeal No.800 of 2008, as withdrawn, substantial questions of law raised are left open. No costs.
mvs.
(S.M.K.,J) (D.K.K.,J) 15[th] June 2016.
Index: yes/No
website: Yes/No.
4
S.MANIKUMAR,J
a n d
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J
mvs.
Tax Case Appeal No.800 of 2008
15/6/2016
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.