Dismissed

S.Subbukutty, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC13 Sept 2022WP/18337/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Tax Case Appeal No.911 of 2009, the Madras High Court considered a merit question regarding Minimum Guarantee Charges. The Revenue counsel submitted that the tax effect was below the Rs.1 Crore limit under CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Tax Case Appeal dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the substantial question of law.

S.Subbukutty, Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Income Tax | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Tax Case Appeal No. 911 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.09.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶8

Tax Case Appeal No.911 of 2009

¶9

Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai.

¶10

.. Appellant

¶11

Versus

¶12

M/s.Rambal Properties Pvt Ltd. 20, Corporation Road, Seevaram Perungudi, Chennai.

¶13

.. Respondent

¶14

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 06.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,

¶15

Madras “B” Bench, in I.T.A.No.1758/Mds/2008.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman

¶17

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/4

¶20

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J and C.SARAVANAN, J

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Tax Case Appeal No. 911 of 2009

¶23

This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 06.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1758/Mds/2008, relating to the assessment year 2003-04.

¶24

2.By order dated 05.10.2009, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial question of law:

¶25

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Minimum Guarantee Charges paid by the assessee company to some other companies of the same group were allowable even though the borrowals in question had no nexus to the assessee's business and no business expediency had been established?"

¶26

When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before

¶27

the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-

¶28

(Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/4

¶30

Tax Case Appeal No. 911 of 2009

¶31

than the threshold limit.

¶32

In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶33

the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in an appropriate cases. No costs.

¶34

Registry is directed to return the original order, if any enclosed along

¶35

with this Appeal after retaining the copy of the same with the court bundle.

¶36

[S.V.N, J.] [C.S.N, J.] 21.09.2022 (1/2)

¶37

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No arr

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

3/4

¶40

Tax Case Appeal No. 911 of 2009

¶41

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶42

arr

¶43

¶44

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “B” Bench.

¶45

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-V (3), Chennai.

¶46

3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)IX, Chennai.

¶47

TCA No. 911 of 2009

¶48

21.09.2022

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

4/4

S.Subbukutty, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Subbukutty, v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

T. Kumaresan(Died), Vs the Asst. Commissioner/

Arputharaj S Vs G/Tn by Secy Edn & Sci & Tech

T. Rajamanickam Vs the Managing Director

K. Chandra Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Karthikeyan, Vs the Commissioner

Azeema Vs the Secretary to Government