Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 v. M/S.l&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd., P.b

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA T.C.A.No.757 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax 2,No.121, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai – 600 034.... Appellant/RespondentVs. M/s.L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd.,P.B.No.979, Mount Poonamallee Road,Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 089.... Respondent/Appellant Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras, “B” Bench, dated 21.11.2014 inI.TA.No.2226/Mds/2013, Assessment Year 2007-08. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax,Appeals II, Chennai – 34 in ITA.398/2011-12, dated 19/08/2013,against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Company, Ward II(1), Chennai – 34, in GIR.No./PAN. dated 16/10/2009for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.N.V.Narayanan for Mr.N.V.Balaji JUDGMENT We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned SeniorStandingCounselfortheappellant/RevenueandMr.N.V.Narayanan for Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for therespondent/assessee.2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainsttheorderdated21.11.2014madeinI.TA.No.2226/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) forthe Assessment Year 2007-08.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestion of law: “1.Whether in the given facts andcircumstances, ITAT is right in law inholding that the investments made in Specialpurpose Vehicles to be excluded from thetotal investments for the purpose ofcomputation of disallowance under section 14Aof the Income Tax Act? 2.Whether in the given facts andcircumstances, ITAT is right in law inholding that the 2% of income derived frominvestments other than investments in SPVs asdisallowance u/s.14A of the IT Act?” 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the Low Tax Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing orpursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased toRs.1 crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect inthis case is less than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above TaxCase Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the LowTax Effect. The substantial question of law framed is leftopen. In the event the tax effect in this case is above thethreshold limit fixed in the said Circular, liberty isgranted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court torestore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. Nocosts. Assistant Registrar (CCC) mkn To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals II, Chennai – 34. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Company Ward II (1), Chennai-34. PVS(CO)https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/GN(18/08/2021)