Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Chennai v. M/S.ab Mauri India Private Ltd

CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai.... Appellant/RespondentVs.M/s.AB Mauri India Private Ltd.,No.2/15, Ganapathy Colony,Teynampet,Chennai – 600 018.... Respondent/Appellant Tax Case Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,Chennai,“A”Bench,dated10.07.2009 inI.TA.No.1692/Mds/2007, Assessment Year 2003-04 and this Appealpreferred against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-II),Chennai order dated 11.04.2007 made in ITA.No.255/2006-07/A.IIIfor the Assessment year 2003-04 and against the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I(1), Chennai -34order dated 28.03.2006 made in PAN./GIR.No. /AX6-628for the Assessment year 2003-2004.For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.Venkata Narayanan forM/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed againstthe order dated 10.07.2009 made in I.TA.No.1692/Mds/2007 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year2003-04.Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed againstthe order dated 10.07.2009 made in I.TA.No.1692/Mds/2007 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year2003-04. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 14.12.2009 on the followingsubstantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin holding that the assessee company was entitled todepreciation under clause (ii) of Section 32(1) ofthe Income Tax Act on the non complete fee paid toTracstal Investment P. Limited and other companies,wrongly interpreting the rule of ejusderm generis andconsidering the non-complete fee as of the same natureof intangible assets like know-how, patents,copyrights, trade arks and other rights of similarnature mentioned in clause (ii) of Section 32(1) ofthe Income Tax 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. 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 this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. Inthe event the tax effect in this case is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal tobe heard and decided on merits. No costs. To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(1), Chennai -34. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai. AKM/18.03.21/2P-5C/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/