Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Jailaxmi Auto Works &

Madras HC2 Mar 2020TCA/1445/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this tax appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue challenged tribunal orders regarding additional depreciation on wind mills. During hearing, the Court noted the Central Board of Direct Taxes' Circular No.17/2019 restricting appeals where tax effect is under Rs.1 crore. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed, keeping substantive questions open.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as not pressed due to the tax effect being less than the statutory limit.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Jailaxmi Auto Works & — Income Tax | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.03.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

Tax Case (Appeal) No.1445 of 2010

¶6

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Chennai

¶7

... Appellant/Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s.Jailaxmi Auto Works & Agenices P Ltd No.82/B, Veerappanpalayam Road Chinna Sengodampalayam Thindal (PO) Erode-638 009 (PAN No.AAACJ5269K) ...

¶10

... Respondent/Respondent

¶11

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 06.08.2010 in ITA No.283/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2005-2006 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore dated 21.12.2009 made in PA No.AAACJ5269K for the assessment year 2005-2006 against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -I, Erode, dated 15/12/2008 made in PA No.GIR No.AAACJ5269K for the assessment year 20052006.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.R.Senniappan

¶13

KOTHARI,J)

¶14

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, 'A' Bench, Chennai, by raising the following substantial questions of law:

¶15

"1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was

¶16

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

¶17

right in law that the assessee is entitled to claim for additional depreciation on Wind Mills, even though the assessee had not exercised the option under Second proviso to Rule 5(1A) before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) in order to claim depreciation at 80%?

¶18

2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing 80% depreciation, even though the assessee had purchased and installed wind mill, no electricity was generated and no income generated under wind mill?”

¶19

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th 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 not pressed, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(ADI (MDU) ) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KST To

¶22

1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench,Chennai.

¶23

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Erode.

¶24

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Erode

¶25

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Chennai.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate SR.No.18581

¶27

T.C.(A) No.1445 of 2010

¶28

VBA(CO) GMY(22/05/2020)

¶29

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Jailaxmi Auto Works &

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Jailaxmi Auto Works &

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 State of Tamilnadu Vs Ragavendra Engineering

Central Board of Customs and Central Excise Vs T. Radhakrishnan

M/S. Kge Yes Residency Private Vs the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax

Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii Vs M/S City Union Bank Ltd.

The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Vs M/S.Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd.

Shri R.Sathiyan Vs the Asst Commissioner of