Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai vs M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. on 31 March, 2015
Bench: Kurian Joseph, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.5628 OF 2008
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. .......RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submits that since some of the matters had
already been remitted by the Appellate Tribunal to the Assessing
Officer, it was not necessary, in the facts of this case, to pursue
the case before the High Court at all since the matter, in any
case, requires consideration by the Assessing Officer as directed
by the Appellate Tribunal.
Having regard to the factual matrix of this appeal, we
are also of the view that the case requires to be considered by the
Assessing Officer and he has to take a decision as to whether the
expenses incurred towards upgradation of computer by change of
software is to be allowed as revenue expenditure or capital
expenditure. It will depend on the consideration of the material
available before the Assessing Officer as to whether the software
Signature Not Verified
used is new or it is only simple upgradation of the existing
Digitally signed by
Satish Kumar Yadav
Date: 2015.04.07
17:05:27 IST
Reason:
software.
2
The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the
appeal is disposed of with the direction to the Assessing Officer
to consider the matter with a notice to the assessee in terms of
the directions issued to him by the Appellate Tribunal and pass an
order in accordance with law within a period of three months from
the date of communication of this order.
...........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
..........................J.
(AMITAVA ROY)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 31, 2015.
3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.2119 OF 2007
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LTD., MADURAI .......RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Learned counsel on both sides fairly submit that in view
of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax,
Madurai and others vs. Saravana Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (2007) 7
SCC 298, the matter requires to be considered by the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeal).
The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the
matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who
is directed to consider the matter with notice to the assessee and
dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of six
months from the date of communication of this order.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
...........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
..........................J.
(AMITAVA ROY)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 31, 2015.
4
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).5628/2008
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. Respondent(s)
WITH SLP(C) No.18114/2009
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No.35563/2011
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No.26716/2013
(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Office Report)
SLP(C) No.28557/2013
(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Office Report)
SLP(C) No.37615/2013
(With Office Report)
C.A. No.2119/2007
(With Office Report)
Date : 31/03/2015 These appeals/petitions were called on for
hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY
For Appellant(s) Mr.K.Radhakrishna, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Rupesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Mrs.Gargi Khanna, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Rajesh Garg, Sr.Adv.
Mr.M.K.Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Mohan Pandey, Adv.
Mr.Siddharth Mittal, Adv.
Mr.Anupam Yadav, Adv.
Mr. S. K. Sabharwal, Adv.
Mr. A. T. M. Sampath, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
C.A.No.5628 of 2008
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
C.A.No.2119 of 2007The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C)No.37615 of 2013Fresh steps be taken to effect service upon the sole respondent within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
SLP(C)No.18114 of 2009, SLP(C)No.35563 of 2011, SLP(C)No.26716 of 2013 and SLP(C)No.28557 of 2013 De-tag these matters.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed orders in C.A.No.5628 of 2008 and C.A.No.2119 of 2007 are placed on the file)