TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said aspect, but merely directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance in this regard to 2% only on tax free bonds, finding the same to be reasonable. Had the CIT(A) adjudicated the correctness of the stand taken by the assessee and rendered a finding, the Tribunal could have tested the correctness of the same. Further, there has been development in law. We do not propose to deny the benefit of the assessee to place reliance on those decisions and put forth their submissions and for such purpose alone, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The substantial question of law No.1 is left open for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. Disallowance of software expenses as being relata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to employees - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own case in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur [ 2015 (5) TMI 72 - ITAT CHENNAI] Following the same, the 5th substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant/assessee. - T.C.A.Nos.704 to 711 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2021 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup For the Appellant : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan in all appeals For the Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.V. Pushpa Standing Counsel in all appeals COMMON JUDGMENT T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. These Tax Case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MOU signed on 11.03.1999? 5.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 4,13,43,888/- being ex-gratia paid to employees? 6.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the reassessment u/s.147? 3.Insofar as the substantial question of law No.1 is concerned, it arises for consideration in all appeals except T.C.A.Nos.706 of 2013 and 711 of 2013, relating to Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. 4.So far as the 2nd substantial question of law is concerned, it arises for consideration only in three appeals, namely, T.C.A.Nos.704 of 2013, 705 of 2013 and 706 of 2013. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Southern Railways Ltd. reported in (2006) 282 ITR 379 (Mad) , wherein, the question was answered in favour of the assessee, which was also taken note of in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy v. The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [T.C.A.Nos.210 and 211 of 2018, dated 24.07.2018] . Thus, the substantial question of law No.2 is answered in favour of the appellant/assessee. 12.Insofar as the substantial question of law No.3 is concerned, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer did not agree with the said submission and referred to the addition made in the earlier years and as against those additions, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli ( CIT(A) for brevity) had deleted the additions and the Revenue has challenged the order before the Tribunal and the issue is pending. Therefore, the Assessing Officer chose to disallow the proportionate expenses. The assessee filed an appeal reiterating the earlier stand that the assessee Bank did not incur any expenditure to get the tax free income and the assessee Bank, at no point of time, had borrowed money for being invested in tax free securities and therefore, requested the Commissioner to delete the addition. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s own case in the earlier year, the Tribunal took note of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Simpson Co. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-VI, Chennai [T.C.No.2621 of 2006, dated 15.10.2012] and confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A), and no interference is called for and prayed that the question may be answered against the assessee. 19.As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee were not available when the Tribunal decided the matter, because, those decisions were rendered during the year 2018-19. In any event, the legal question requires to be considered. However, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
