Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Fi Smidth Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Fee Minerals India Pvt.ltd.,)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY M.P.No.1 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai ... AppellantVs FI Smidth Minerals Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly FEE Minerals India Pvt.Ltd.,)34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam,Old Mahabalipuram Road,Chennai 603 103.PAN : AACF 1122 D ... Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,Madras'C'Bench,dated15.05.2009inI.T.A.No.1593/08, against the Order passed by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals)- XII, Chennai-600 034 in ITANo.137/2006-07 Order dated 31/03/2008 for the Assessment year2003-04 against the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Company Circle (II)(1), Chennai, in PAN/GIRNo. Order dated 10/03/2006 for the Assessment Year2003-2004. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Standing counsel For Respondent : M/s.Srini Ranjani The Court was held by Video Conference, as per theResolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges attheir respective residences andthe counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respectiveresidences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by theRevenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C' Bench byraising the following substantial questions of law:"(a)The order of the Appellate Tribunal iserroneous in law and opposed to the factsand circumstances of the case.(b) The Appellate Tribunal erred inconfirming the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) in reducing thedisallowance for provision for warranty fromRs.1,53,21,638/- to Rs.40 lakhs on theground that the claim of Rs.1,13,21,638/-'pertained to retention money, liquidateddamages etc., (c) The Appellate Tribunal ought to haveheld that the entire provision ofRS.1,53,21,638/- was claimed as provisionfor warranty which has not been made basedon any systematic data maintained viz., onany scientific basis but had been made onlyon an ad hoc basis.” 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated8 August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall notbe filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court incases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore). 4. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 isclosed. 5. Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment tothe Respondent / Assessee in the address given in the Appeal. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// msr To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XIIChennai-34Chennai-34 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench. Madras 'C' Bench. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax,Company Circle -II(1), Chennai-34.Company Circle -II(1), Chennai-34. 5.FI Smidth Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly FEE Minerals India Pvt.Ltd.,) 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai 603 103. PAN : AACF 1122 D +1 cc to M/s.N.Muthukumar, Advocate Sr.No. 27279 T.C.A.No.138 of 2010& M.P.No.1 of 2010RJI(CO)RMP(02/09/2020)