The High Court dismissed the Revenue's Tax Case as not pressed because the tax effect fell below the Rs. 50 lakh limit stipulated in Circular No. 3/2018, though legal questions remain.
Tax Case dismissed as not pressed due to tax effect being under Rs. 50 lakhs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 3.1.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Tax Case No.672 of 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Tamil Nadu-III,Chennai. Appellant
M/s.Mapcon Private Ltd., 161 Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. Respondent
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.2140/Mds/2006 against the order dated 15/10/2004 made in ITA No.189/04-05 transferred in from CIT(A) V vide ITA No.7/04-05 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, 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 1998-1999.
For respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar
(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)
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.2140/Mds/2006 by raising the following substantial questions of law:
"(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
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?
(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?"
TC No.672 of 2008
SAI(CO) SSM(31/01/2019)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax
M/s. Mapcon Private Ltd.
Vineet Kothari
Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
