Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. R.k.swamy Bbdo Advertising Ltd., Chennai-6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 21.8.2019 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMand The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai...Appellant VsR.K.Swamy BBDO AdvertisingLtd., Chennai-6....Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 21.2.2012 made in ITA.Nos.1249 &1250/Mds/2010 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai 'A' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2005-06and 2006-07, and against the order dated 10/05/2010 and10/05/2010 and made in ITA.Nos.444/2007-08 and 341/08-09 on thefile of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)V, Chennai -34respectively and against the order dated 26/12/2007 and23/12/2008 and made in PAN.Nos. and on thefile of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax CompanyRange V, Chennai and Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle V(4), Chennai respectively. COMMON JUDGMENT We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman,learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common orderdated 21.2.2012 made in ITA.Nos.1249 & 1250/Mds/2010 on the fileof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Benchrespectively for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appeals were admitted on 08.8.2012 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in deleting the disallowance of excessrent paid by the assessee herein towards itssister companies with respect to itsproperties at Mumbai and Delhi, when theexcess rent was computed by taking thecomparative fair market rent payable for theproperties at Mumbai and Delhi ? andii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in deleting the disallowance ofinterest paid by the assessee towardsborrowals from the bank when the assesseehad lent its funds without interest to itssister concern ?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Bythe said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing anappeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore.It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respectivecases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect in the respective cases is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appealsto be heard and decided on merits. Consequently, the connectedMP is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)V,Chennai. 4.The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Company Range V, Chennai.5.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle V(4), Chennai.+1 cc to M/s.M.Swaminathan,Advocate Sr.No. 72328+1 cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate Sr.No.71126AKM/23.10.19/3P- 8C / TCA.Nos.224 & 225 of 2012