Commissioner Of Income Tax-I,Chennai v. A B Mauri India Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.02.2021 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.No.1342 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai. Vs. ... Appellant/Appellant A B Mauri India Pvt. Ltd.,2/15, Ganapathy Colony,Teynampet,Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondent/Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai, “A” Bench, dated 20.05.2009 in I.TA.No.1520/Mds/2007,Assessment Year 2001-02 and this Appeal preferred against theCommissioner of Income Tax(A)-II, Chennai order dated 30.03.2007made in ITA.No.717/2006-07/A III for the Assessment year 2001-02and against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CompanyCircle I(1), Chennai -34, order dated 20.12.2006 made inPAN./GIR.No.AABCB0012B/Ax6-628 for the Assessment year 2001-02. 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 20.05.2009 made in I.TA.No.1520/Mds/2007 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2001-02. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 07.12.2009 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, wrongly interpretingthe rule of ejusdern generis and considering the non-complete fee as of the same nature of intangibleassets like know-how, patents, copyrights, trade arksand other rights of similar nature mentioned in clause(ii) of Section 32(1) of the 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 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(A)II, Chennai. +1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate SR.NO..11604+1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate SR.NO..11557AKM/18.03.21/2P- 7C/ T.C.A.No.1342 of 2009