Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Sas Hotels & Enterprises Ltd
High Court
22 Feb 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Sas Hotels & Enterprises Ltd
Date of order
22 Feb 2021
Assessment year(s)
2002-2003, 2002-03
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Sas Hotels & Enterprises Ltd, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Decision: 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above TaxCase Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the LowTax Effect.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 22.02.2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
T.C.A.No.587 of 2010
Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... AppellantVs.SAS Hotels & Enterprises Ltd.,No.3, Mangesh Street,T.Nagar, Chennai – 17....Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras, "C" Bench, dated 11.04.2008 inI.TA.No.302/Mds/2006 Assessment Year 2002-03 against theorder of the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V,121,Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai 34 dated 21.10.2005 inITA.NO.254/2005-06 for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 andagainst the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company CircleVI(1),Chennai 34 dated 31.03.2005 GIR/PAN NO.S-68/ ,for the Assessment Year 2002-2003.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan
JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Ms.SriniranjaniSrinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainsttheorderdated11.04.2008madeinI.TA.No.302/Mds/2006 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, "C" Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) forthe Assessment Year 2002-03.
3.The appeal was admitted on 20.07.2010 on the followingsubstantial question of law:https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/“Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holdingthat while computing the deduction underSection 80HHD the turnover of wind milldivision/civil contract receipts were to beexcluded from the total receipts of thebusiness carried on by the assessee?”
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 inthese cases are 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.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
vaTo
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, C Bench.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.
3.The Deputy commissioner of Income tax,Company circle (VI)(i),chennai.
4.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals V,Chennai.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.