Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of v. M/S. the Zigma Technologies(I)

Madras HC6 Jun 2019TCA/27/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tax appeal by the Revenue against the ITAT order regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was dismissed due to low tax effect arising from Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. The substantial question of law was left open.

What did the court decide?

Tax case appeal dismissed due to low tax effect pursuant to Circular No.3 of 2018; substantial question of law left open.

Principal Commissioner of Vs M/S. the Zigma Technologies(I) — Income Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.06.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶7

Tax Case Appeal No.27 of 2018

¶8

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. ... Appellant -vs-

¶9

M/s.The Zigma Technologies (I) (P) Ltd., No.747, Amar Complex, S.K.C.Road, Erode-638 001.

¶10

PAN : AAC CT 0611K ... Respondent

¶11

Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 03.04.2017 made in I.T.A.No.694/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Coimbatore dated 28.12.2015 and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-I, Erode dated 28.08.2014.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)

¶15

This appeal, by the appellant/Revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 03.04.2017, in I.T.A.No.694/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12.

¶16

2.The above appeal has been filed raising the following substantial question of law:-

¶17

“Whether the Tribunal is correct in deleting

¶18

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

¶19

the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c), when the assessee made excess and wrong claim of 100% depreciation on the “Temporary Structure” in the leased premises whereas the assessee is entitled only of 10% depreciation?”

¶20

3.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue; and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

¶21

4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that the appeal is not being pursued by the Revenue on account of low tax effect in the light of the Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018.

¶22

5.Thus, by applying the above Circular, this tax case appeal stands dismissed on the ground of low tax effect and the substantial question of law, framed for consideration, is left open. The Revenue is at liberty to seek for restoration of appeal if at a later point of time, it is found that the tax effect is above the threshold limit or to fall under the exceptional clauses mentioned in the Circular. No costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai.

¶24

2.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore.

¶25

3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Circle-1), Erode-638 001. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.45570 +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate Sr.45232

¶26

T.C.A.No.27 of 2018

¶27

mp[co] srg 16/07/2019

¶28

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

Principal Commissioner of v. M/S. the Zigma Technologies(I)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of v. M/S. the Zigma Technologies(I)

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Soundarrajan Parthasarathy

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sri Rameswara Reddy Kummathi

Shri Babu Manoharan Vs the Dy.Commr of I.T

M/S Eid Parry (India) Ltd. Vs the Asst Commissioner of

The Government Telecommunication Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer

C.Shrinivasan Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax