IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 2.2.2015 CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA T.C.(A).Nos.1305 and 1306 of 2007 India Nippon Electricals Ltd. Alim Centre (II Floor) 82, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai 600004. Appellant in both appeals Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-II (3) Chennai 600034. Respondent in TC.1305/2007 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-II (3) Chennai 600 034. .. Respondent in TC.1306/2007 PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 15.9.2006 made in (i) I.T.A. No.106/Mds/2005 for assessment year 2000- 2001; and (ii) I.T.A. No.636/Mds/2006 for assessment year 2002-2003. For Appellant : Mr. Venkat Narayanan for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar For Respondents : Mr. T.Ravi Kumar in both appeals Senior Standing Counsel (2) JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) assessee has filed these appeals assailing order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 15.9.2006 made in (i) I.T.A. No.106/Mds/2005 for assessment year 2000-2001; and (ii) I.T.A. No.636/Mds/2006 for assessment year 2002-2003 and same were admitted on following questions of law: (i) Whether Tribunal was justified in upholding estimated disallowance of 2% of expenditure as being incidental to earning dividend income under Section 14A of Act, although no actual expenditure was incurred? (ii) Whether Tribunal was justified in not appreciating that as per Section 14A of Act only actual expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income shall be disallowed? 2. learned counsel on either side submit that questions of law raised in these appeals are covered by decision of Division Bench of this Court in EID Parry Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (T.C. (A) No.2511/06 dated 30.10.12). In said judgment, this Court considered two questions of law as under: (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding estimate of expenses at 2% deemed to have been incurred in respect of dividend income, when no such expenses were incurred? (3) (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding addition of estimate expenses at rate of 2% on dividend income while computing book profits, when no such expenses were incurred? and answered same as under: 2. As far as first and second questions of law are concerned, learned counsel for assessee fairly submits that same is covered against assessee by reason of decision of this Court rendered in assessee's own case in T.C. No.2287 of 2006 dated 8.8.12. Accordingly, above two questions of law are answered against assessee. 3. above said decision has been followed by this Court in judgment dated 17.12.2014 made in T.C.(A) No.524 of 2007 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tube Investments of India Ltd) and identical questions of law were answered against assessee. 4. In view of decisions referred supra, these appeals are dismissed answering questions of law raised in these appeals against assessee and in favour of Revenue. No costs. (R.S.J.) (S.V.J.) 2.2.2015 Index : No Internet : Yes sasi (4) To: 1. Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench "A", Chennai. 2. Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XI Chennai. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle II(3), Chennai. 5. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle II(3), Chennai. (5) R.SUDHAKAR,J. and S.VIMALA,J. (sasi) T.C.(A).Nos.1305 and 1306 of 2007 2.2.2015 India Nippon Electricals Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-II(3), Chennai