Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Chettinad Mbf Silica P Ltd.

Madras HC19 Dec 2018TCA/1405/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this tax case appeal, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an ITAT order. The Court held that the tax effect did not exceed the Rs.50 lakh monetary limit stipulated in Circular No.3/2018, rendering the appeal not pressed. The substantial question of law regarding expense classification was kept open.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not pressed due to tax effect being less than Rs.50 lakhs; substantial question of law kept open.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Chettinad Mbf… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

Tax Case Appeal No.1405 of 2009

¶6

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Appellant /Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench, dated 10.07.2009, made in ITA No.169/Mds/2009 preferred against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIII, Chennai dated 17.12.2018, made in ITA.No. 135/07-08, against the Order dated 26.12.2006, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I (3), Chennai in GI.No/PAN.No. AAA CC4612.

¶8

J U D G M E N T (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J.)

¶9

This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 10.07.2009, in ITA No.169/Mds/2009, by raising the following substantial question of law :

¶10

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the entire expenses relating to land development expenses, construction of compound wall and construction of community hall as revenue expenditure ?

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.7.2018, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50.00 lakhs.

¶13

In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, as not pressed, keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs.

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dixit
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 'D' Bench,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIII,
Chennai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company circle I (3), Chennai.

¶15

+1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.89272

¶16

+1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No. 88844

¶17

TCA No.1405 OF 2009

¶18

SSV(CO) GN(28/01/2019)

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Chettinad Mbf Silica P Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Chettinad Mbf Silica P Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

The Commissioner of Vs M/S.Kumbakonam Mutual

M/S Store N Move Pvt. Ltd, Vs Mr. Ysp Balraj

P. Marimuthu Vs The Commissioner

Commissioner of Income Tax I Vs M/S Atlantic Fabrics