At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
For the Appellant: M. Kaushik, A.S. Sriraman, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Karthik Ranganathan Standing Counsel.
(Prayer: Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench, dated 21.09.2016 in I.T.A.Nos.2260 Mds/2015 & 125/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012.)
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
1. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directed against the common order dated 21.09.2016 made in I.T.A.Nos.2260 Mds/2015 & 125/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2011-2012.
2. The appeals were admitted on 14.11.2017 on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the disallowance of the claim for deduction of guarantee commission paid to the Directors of the assessee company, including a non-whole time Director, by questioning the necessity of such payment in the course of business of the assessee company?
(ii) Whether the Revenue is empowered to question the necessity of payment in the course of business of the assessee company either under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or under section 40A(2)(a) of the said Act or under any other provision of the said Act?
(iii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in sustaining the disallowance or rent payments to a Director towards rent of a property owned by such Director and taken by the company on lease and/or tenancy to provide rent free accommodation to the same Director under the contract of employment of the Director with the assessee company?
(iv) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in disregarding the original transaction between the assessee company and its Director under section 40A(2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with regard to payment of rent to a Director in respect of the premises leased from such Director and treating the same as payment of remuneration in another form notwithstanding the existence of an enforceable lease agreement and/or rental agreement?
(v) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in sustaining the disallowance fo payment of rent by the assessee company to its Director for the property taken on lease/rent from the Director, though no authority had questioned ;the fair market value of the rent paid to the Director of the property leased to the assessee company?"
3. We have heard Mr.M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17th March 2020.
5. We are i
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nformed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form – 3 on 09.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeals. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.