Commissioner Of Income Tax-I,Chennai v. M/S.ip Rings Limited,Arjay Apex Centre

DATED: 28.1.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (A) Nos.359 to 362 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai. Appellant Vs. M/s.IP Rings Limited,Arjay Apex Centre, 24, College Road,Chennai 600 006. Respondent Tax Cases filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B'Bench, Chennai, dated 25.2.2011 made in ITA Nos.1687/Mds/2010,1688/Mds/2010, 1689/Mds/2010 and 1690/Mds/2010 against the Orderof the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai -34, madein ITA No. dated against the Order of the Income Tax Officermade in the order of commissioner of Income Tax Appeals III,dated 14/07/2010 and made in I.T.A. No. 523/06-07/A-III, 181/07-08/A-III,495/06-07/A-III,182/07-08/A-IIIagainsttheAssessment order of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle II(3), Chennai dated 18/10/06 made in IX 2-043/AAAC 10908C, dated 27/09/07 and made in AAAC 10908C, dated01/11/06 in 1x2-043/AAAC 10908C, 289/07 for the assessment year1999-2000, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.P.Venkatnarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Iyer (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) These Tax Cases have been filed by the Revenue, calling inquestion the correctness of the order passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 25.2.2011 made inITA Nos.1687/Mds/2010, 1688/Mds/2010, 1689/Mds/2010 and1690/Mds/2010, for the Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2003-2004,2004-2005 and 2005-2006, by raising the following substantialquestions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) was justified in restricting thedisallowance of royalty payment to the foreigncompany to 25% only as capital expenditure andallowing 75% of the royalty as revenue expenditurewithout appreciating that the terms of the agreementconferred an enduring advantage to the assessee andtherefore the entire payment fell in the capitalfield? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in not adjudicating the grounds raised by theRevenue to the effect that from the assessment year1999-2000 the Income Tax Act had been amended bygranting depreciation on intangible assets treatedas a separate "block of assets" and therefore thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSouthern Switchgear Ltd. (232 ITR 539) was notapplicable in the facts of the instant case?" 2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learnedSenior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes videCircular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filedby the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ substantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssk. To1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai.2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai.3. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(3), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-III, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.+1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate, S.R.No.6046TCA Nos.359 to 362 of 2011 GJ(CO)KKV/16/06/2020