##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-10-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR TC(A).No.351 of 2015 CNR: {HCMA010508382015}

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.

..Appellant Vs M/s.TVS Motor Company Ltd., Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old No.8) Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.

..Respondent PRAYER: Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’

Bench, Chennai dated 04.10.2012 passed in ITA.No.944/Mds/2011.

For Appellant: Dr.S.Sathiyanarayanan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth, J.)

This is an appeal for assessment year (A.Y.) 2007-2008 filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) challenging an order of the Tribunal dated

04.10.2012.

2. We have heard Dr.S.Sathiyanarayanan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee in detail and had perused the material papers and case laws cited.

3. We find that all the issues arising for our consideration are covered by earlier orders passed in the assessee’s own case, and other decisions as well. The substantial questions, our discussion and the conclusion in respect of each questions of law are set out below in seriatim:

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the disallowance of expenditure on replacement of dies and moulds amounting to Rs.26,90,29,422/- is to be allowed?

4. Both learned counsel accede to the position that this issue, relating to disallowance of expenditure on replacement of dies and moulds is to be held in favour of the assessee vide decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. TVS Motors Ltd., 1364 ITR 1. The operative portion is as follows:

“31. Applying the ratio of the decision cited above, when we look into the facts of the above cases, it is evident that with regard to the moulds and dies attached to the machinery like press designs specification, moulds and dies are not independent of the plant and machinery, but are parts of the machinery. Once the dies are worn out, the machines cannot turn out the product to the business specifications and this has to be obtained only on a replacement of the dies and moulds, a fact which is not refuted by the revenue. It is no doubt true that the assessee claimed depreciation on dies and moulds. Yet in the decision in the case of CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., reported in (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC), the Apex Court pointed out that all questions whether of law or of fact, which relate to the assessment year of the assessee could be raised in any year under consideration before the Officer as well as before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal too and if, for reasons recorded by the departmental authorities in rejecting a contention raised by the assessee, the grant of relief to an assessee is justified on another ground, the Revenue is bound to consider such claim of granting the relief. The Apex Court pointed out that the right of the assessee to the relief is not restricted to the plea raised by him. On the facts before us, when the dies and moulds were attached to the machine to manufacture the designed product, we have no hesitation to accept the plea of the assessee that the claim would fall for consideration only under Section 31 of the Act.”

This issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the deduction u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs.34,75,50,1060/- is to be allowed?

5. Both learned counsel agree that this issue relating to deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘Act’) is also covered by the decision in TVS Motors Ltd., Footnote Supra 1 where this Court,