Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, v. M/S.Transworld Garnet India

Madras HC4 Sept 2019TCA/123/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the Tribunal's order. During the hearing, a circular instruction limiting Department appeals to cases exceeding Rs. 1 crore tax effect was cited. Being below the limit, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without determining the legal questions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn.

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Vs M/S.Transworld Garnet India — Income Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

Tax Case Appeal No.123 of 2011

¶6

Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chennai. .. Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s. Transworld Garnet India Private Ltd., Ramaniyam Arcade, III Floor, E-28, II Avenue, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. .. Respondent

¶9

Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench dated 14.10.2010 - ITA No.1399/Mds/2009 Assessment year 1997-1998.

¶10

TCA.No.123 of 2011 preferred against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) XII, Chennai made in ITA.No.376/2007-08 dated 29/05/2009 for the assessment year 1997-98 against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-III(2), Chennai dated 27.02.2004 for the assessment year 1997-98. For Appellant : M/s.V.Pushpa Junior Standing Counsel. I/T. For Respondent : Mr.T.K.Bhaskar

¶11

JUDGMENT (By DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J.)

¶12

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 'C' Bench, dated 14.10.2010, in ITA No.1399/Mds/2009 Assessment year 1997-1998, by raising the following substantial questions of law :

¶13

i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowances towards pre-production expenses viz., (i) 20% of

¶14

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

¶15

expenses of Rs.1,69,57,073/- (which have been disallowed on adhoc basis), (ii) remuneration to Managing Director a sum of Rs.39,00,000/(iii) a sum of Rs.50,09,291/- (disallowed by the Assessing Officer for want of complete details)?

¶16

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricting the disallowance of trading loss to Rs.8,82,895/- as against Rs.35,06,713/- made by the Assessing Officer?

¶17

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deciding the issues referred to in the preceding questions without considering the specific grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in the appeal before the Tribunal?

¶18

Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not holding the C.I.T.(Appeals was wrong in deleting the above circumstances without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer?'"

¶19

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the Department brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019, dated 8^th August,2019, 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.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore).

¶20

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 withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, Chennai.

¶28

2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XII, Chennai -34.

¶29

3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circe -III(2), Chennai.

¶30

+1 cc to M/s.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.No.76418

¶31

AKM/14.10.19/3P-5C / TCA No.123 of 2011

¶32

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, v. M/S.Transworld Garnet India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, v. M/S.Transworld Garnet India

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

M/S Yule Engineering Vs the Assistatn Commissioner

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri S Balakrishnan

Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Vs M/S Carborandum Universal Ltd.

Thiagarajar Mills Vs Asst Commissioner

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Rural Education and Aids

Director of Income Tax Vs M/S Prasad Production Ltd.