Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

M/s.superfil Products Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle - Vi(4)

M/s.superfil Products Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle - Vi(4)

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Tax Case Appeal Nos.177 to 179 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.4542 of 2021 in TCA.No.177 of 2021 | 04-03-2021

1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (' the' for brevity) challenging the common order dated 12.10.2012 made in ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2056/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment years 1998-99, 2000-01 and 2005- 06 respectively

2. The appellant-assessee in T.C.A.No.177 of 2021 has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

"1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstance of this case, the order of the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation claim is not allowable on Termopac Machine as the assessee does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstance of this case, the order of the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the claim of depreciation is not allowable even though the asset in question formed part of block of assets and that the assessee has been in the business for several years and

3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstance of this case, the order of the Tribunal was right in holding that the pre-operative expenses to the tune of Rs.13,94,779/- is not allowable expenditure"

3. The appellant-assessee in T.C.A.No.178 of 2021 has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

"1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstance of this case, the order of the Tribunal was right in holding that the advance paid and pre-operative expenses are not allowable as revenue loss under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and

2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstance of this case, the order of the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the claim of deduction under Section 80IB is not allowable from AY 2000-01 to 2004-05 and not from AY 2001-02 to 2005-06"

4. The appellant-assessee in T.C.A.No.179 of 2021 has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration:

"1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstance of this case, the order of the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the claim of deduction under Section 80IB is not allowable from AY 2000-01 to 2004-05 and not from AY 2001-02 to 2005-06"

5. We have heard Ms.Lakshmi Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee and Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Revenue.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has circulated a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeals on the ground that they have availed the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

7. Recording the said statement, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

Advocate List

  • Ms.Lakshmi Sriram

  • Mr.J.Narayanasamy, SSC

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICET.S.SIVAGNANAM
  • HON'BLE MS. JUSTICER.N.MANJULA
Eq Citations
  • LQ/MadHC/2021/759
Head Note

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Ss. 260A and 245C — Withdrawal of appeals — Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 — Withdrawal of appeals on ground that benefit of Scheme availed — Dismissal of appeals as withdrawn