1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.12.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.285 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. ... Appellant -vs- M/s.Tenneco RC India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Hydraulics Limited) No.22, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Hosur – 635 126. ... Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai, dated 16.11.2010, in ITA.No.1895/Mds/2009 for the assessment year 2003-04. For Appellant : M/s.V.Pushpa For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar ****** JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench ' A', Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 16.11.2010, in ITA.No.1895/Mds/2009 for the assessment year 2003-04. 2.The appeal has been admitted by order dated 17.08.2011, on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of interest on the advance given to the subsidiary company? 3.Heard M/s.V.Pushpa, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr.R.kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee submits that for the assessment year 1999-2000, the Division Bench in TC(A).No.18 of 2010 dated 01.07.2013 has held in favour of the assessee. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “13.The Revenue does not dispute the fact that the advancing of funds by the assessee into the sister concern was in terms of the BIFR's order. That being the case, no useful purpose would be served by again directing a remand http://www.judis.nic.in 3 on the merits of the claim of the assessee.” 5.Following the same, this tax case appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (N.S.K., J.) 04.12.2018 cse To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. and N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. cse T.C.(A) No.285 of 2011 04.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in