The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0707-4]

Citation 2020-LL-0707-4
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 07/07/2020
Assessment Year 2005-06
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags business activity • excess amount • other income • capital receipt • income from other source
Bot Summary: In Page 1 of 5 TCA No.305 of 2018 JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal by the revenue is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Madras, in ITA No.658/Mds/2016 dated 28.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the revenue cannot sustain this appeal for more than one reason. Firstly, the Commissioner of Income Tax, while deciding the appeal petition filed by the assessee against the order of assessment dated 31.03.2013, partly allowed the assessee's appeal by following the decision in the assessee's own case in respect of an identical transaction for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. For the Assessment Year under consideration, the revenue thought it fit to file an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal took note of its earlier decisions, referred above and dismissed the appeal. Even before the tribunal, the revenue did not produce any material to show that the orders passed by the tribunal for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were taken on appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. For the above reasons the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed.


TCA No.305 of 2018 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.07.2020 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.305 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. .. Appellant versus M/s.Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd., 45A, Velacherry Main Road, Velacherry, Chennai 600 042. .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against order made in ITA No.658/Mds/2016 dated 28.12.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, for Assessment Year 2005-06. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 5 TCA No.305 of 2018 JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal by revenue is filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for brevity), challenging order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Madras, in ITA No.658/Mds/2016 dated 28.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. appeal was admitted on 04.12.2019 on following Substantial Questions of Law: (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in holding that excess amount received by assessee on reimbursement received from M/s.Symantec Corporation, USA on account of assets purchased and used by assessee for work towards payee company as Capital Receipts as against stand of Assessing Officer that it was Income from other Sources ? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal has erred in not considering fact above sum is not due to any sale of fixed assets exclusively and that it is received only during course of business activity which assessee itself credited under head Other Income ? 3. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 5 TCA No.305 of 2018 Counsel for appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for respondent/assessee. 4. After elaborately hearing learned counsel for parties, we find that revenue cannot sustain this appeal for more than one reason. Firstly, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while deciding appeal petition filed by assessee against order of assessment dated 31.03.2013, partly allowed assessee's appeal by following decision in assessee's own case in respect of identical transaction for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. It was pointed out that since facts of case are identical to Assessment Years referred above, CIT (A) followed order of tribunal. 5. It is evident that as on date when CIT(A) allowed assessee's appeal by order dated 17.12.2015, no appeal was preferred before Division Bench of this Court, questioning correctness of order passed by tribunal dated 26.07.2012, for Assessment Year 2006-07 or 08.03.2013, for Assessment Year 2007-08. Had appeal been preferred, revenue could have taken stand before CIT(A) that decisions of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 5 TCA No.305 of 2018 26.07.2012 and 08.03.2013, have not been accepted by Department and not attained finality. Since no such stand was taken, it is clear that decisions have been accepted by Department. Nevertheless, for Assessment Year under consideration, revenue thought it fit to file appeal before tribunal. tribunal took note of its earlier decisions, referred above and dismissed appeal. Even before tribunal, revenue did not produce any material to show that orders passed by tribunal for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were taken on appeal before Division Bench of this Court. 6. Therefore, we are of considered view that revenue cannot maintain this appeal. For above reasons Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. Substantial Questions of Law are answered against revenue. No Costs. [T.S.S., J.] [V.B.S., J.] 07.07.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Speaking/Non-speaking order. ars/raja T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 5 TCA No.305 of 2018 ars/raja TCA No.305 of 2018 07.07.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 of 5 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd
Report Error