The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.redington (India) Ltd.,Spl Guindy House, 95 Mount Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.07.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.552 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.Redington (India) Ltd.,SPL Guindy House, 95 Mount Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai "D" Bench, dated 11.09.2015 passed inM.P.No.104/Mds/2015 in I.T.A.No.1743/Mds/2011 against the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennaidated 26.06.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1743/Mds/2011 for theAssessment year 2007-08. Against the Assessment Order by theIncome Tax Department, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle V(3), Chennai – 34, Order dated 30.09.2011 madein PAN AABCR 0347 P for the Assessment year 2007-08. Against theproceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Chennai,passeddirectionsdated08.09.2011madeinF.No.DRP/Chennai/Sectt/043/2011-12 for the Assessment year 2007-08, against the assessment order date 30.12.2010 passed by theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai,made in PAN No. for the Assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkat Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan J U D G M E N T(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in M.P.No.104/Mds/2015 in I.T.A.No.1743/Mds/2011 forthe assessment year 2007-08. The above appeal has been admittedon the following Substantial 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 while so the Associated Enterprise 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 transactionwhen Section 92 B of the Income Tax Act which had beenamended 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?” 2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Venkat Narayanan for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel for therespondent/assessee. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions 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. 2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Venkat Narayanan for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel for therespondent/assessee. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions 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. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submittedthat the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme andthat the respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–5 on 06.05.2021. 5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-5,nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for therespondent/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. Nocosts. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) // True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mkn To 1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(3) Chennai. 3.The Ministry of Finance Income Tax Department Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Chennai-34 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V(3) Chennai-34 +1cc to M/S. Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No.35745+1cc to M/S. T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.35742 Tax Case Appeal No.552 of 2016 RLD(CO)SU(12/08/2021)