Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Mapcon Private Ltd.

Madras HC3 Jan 2019TC/671/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Tax Case filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as not pressed because the tax effect was less than Rs.50 lakhs as per CBIC Circular No.3/2018, keeping the questions of law for determination in an appropriate case.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed as not pressed; substantial questions of law kept open.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Mapcon Private Ltd. — Income Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 3.1.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Tax Case No.671 of 2008

¶6

The Commissioner of Income Tax Tamil Nadu-III,Chennai. Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.Mapcon Private Ltd.,

¶9

161 Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. Respondent

¶10

Tax Case filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 3.8.2007 made in ITA No.105/Mds/2004 against the order dated 31/10/2003 made in ITA No.230/2002-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai - 600 034 and against the order dated 26/12/2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle IV(1), Chennai - 34 for the assessment year 19981999.

¶11

----For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel

¶12

For respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)

¶15

This Tax Case has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 3.8.2007 made in ITA No.105/Mds/2004 by raising the following substantial questions of law:

¶16

"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the claim of the assessee in respect of the actual cost of

¶17

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

¶18

Cinematographic films on sale and lease back transaction by invoking explanation 3 to Section 43(1) will apply to the facts of this case, even though explanation 4A will apply on the facts and circumstances of the case?

¶19

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Cinematographic films is held to be eligible for 100% depreciation, even though as per No.3(ii), Appendix I of the depreciation table, bulbs of studio lights, are eligible for 100% depreciation?"

¶20

When the matter is taken up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel 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 lakhs.

¶21

In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Tax Case filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

ssk Sub Assistant Registrar To 1) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai,

¶25

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai - 600 034

¶26

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle IV(1), Chennai - 34

¶27

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamilnadu III, Chennai.

¶28

TC No.671 of 2008 SAI(CO) SSM(31/01/2019)

¶29

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Mapcon Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Mapcon Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Twenty First Century Vs the Income Tax Officer (Osd)

M/S Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Apollo Hospitals Enterprises

India Nippon Electricals Ltd. Vs the Asst. Commr. of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Mapcon Private Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Mapcon Private Ltd.