Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. M/S.n.e.p.c.india Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.3.2019 CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Tax Case No.2101 of 2008 Commissioner of Income TaxChennai. Appellant/AppellantVs. M/s.N.E.P.C.India Limited,No.36, Wallajah Road, Chennai 600 002. G.I.No./PA No.AAACN 1567E Respondent/Respondent Tax Case filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 7.3.2008 made in ITANo.1264/Mds/2002 against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Central I, Chennai dated 12.03.2002 in I.T.A. No.179/2001-2002 against the Assessmeny order dated 30.03.1999 andmade in P.A. No. AAACN1567E by the Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax, Central Circle I(1) Chennai for the Assessment year 1996-1997. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case has been filed by the Revenue calling inquestion the correctness of the order passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 7.3.2008 made inITA No.1264/Mds/2002, by raising the following substantialquestions of law: "i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in allowing a deductionof Rs.13,24,183/- representing purchase of airmanuals, air-conditioners, etc., as revenueexpenditure? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in allowing deductionof Rs.6,29,104/- being the disallowance made underSection 40A(3) of the Act?iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in allowing deductionbeing the disallowance on account of delayedremittance of Employees' Contribution to ProvidentFund and Employer's contribution to Provident Fundwithout actually verifying the correctness of thedates of payment? iv) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in allowing theexpenditure towards alteration of factory buildingas revenue expenditure?" 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. 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 not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in an appropriatecase. s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ssk.To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai 2. Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central I, Chennai 600 034. Central I, Chennai 600 034. Tax Case No.2101 of 2008 GJ(CO)SP(02/05/2019)