9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to as "the Act"), is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench, Chennai, in ITA No.144/Mds/2015, dated 25.05.2016 for the assessment year 2002-03. 3.This matter was listed today under the caption "notice regarding admission". 4.Heard, Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 5.The respondent company is a holding company of M/s. Accel ICIM System and Service Limited. As on 01.04.2001, the respondent company was holding 92.43% of shares in its subsidiary company. The said share holding was subsequently reduced from 92.43% to 61.24% as on 31.02.2002. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove said appeal. 8.The department initiated two separate proceedings for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05, for one time advance of Rs. 3.00 Crores made by the subsidiary company to its holding company. 9.As far as the issue relating to the assessment year 2004-05 is concerned, it has reached a finality at the level of this Court in TCA.No.167 of 2011 dated 21.01.2019. This Court, while considering the materials available on record, found that there was no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the department appeal, since the entire dispute is purely factual and therefore dismissed the appeal. The relevant portion of paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- "4.The first aspect to be consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras "C" Bench, Chennai in ITA No.144/Mds/2015 (for the assessment year 2002-03). The Tribunal has also passed its order in that appeal on 20.05.2016, holding that the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) have elaborately dealt with the facts of the case. Further, it has not found any error in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue in I.T.A.No.144/Mds/2015 was dismissed. As against the said order, the department has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 11.As stated above, this Court already has decided the said issue against the same appellant, holding that the sum of Rs. 3.00 Crores received by the respondent company from its subsi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
