Commissioner Of Income Tax Ltu Chennai v. M/S.carborandum Universal Ltd., 'Party House' Vi Floor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.9.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.419 to 421 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax LTUChennai...Appellant in all TCAsVs. M/s.Carborandum Universal Ltd.,'Party House' VI Floor,43, Moore Street,Chennai 600 001. ..Respondent in all TCAs Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 14.8.2009 made in ITANos.396/Mds/2009, 397/Mds/2009 and 398/Mds/2009 against theCommon Appellate Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Chennai -34, dated 25.09.2008, made in ITA No.38/07-08/LTU(A), 40/07-08/LTU(A) and ITA.39/07-08/LTU(A) againstthe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I(3),Chennai dated 31.10.2006 made in GI No./PA No.AAACC 2474-P forthe Assessment Years 1992-93, 1996-97 & 1997-98. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar(in All) Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.Venkatanarayanan for(in All) M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar COMMON JUDGMENT(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 14.8.2009 made in ITANos.396/Mds/2009, 397/Mds/2009 and 398/Mds/2009, for theAssessment Years 1992-93, 1996-97 and 1997-98, by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the Tribunal had already heldthat processing charges were not covered by theexplanation (baa) of Section 80HHC while remittingthe matter to the Assessing Officer to examine thedetails and since the said order had not beencontested by the Revenue under Section 254(2) or260A and the Tribunal had only issued the directionsbased on the decision of the Bombay High Court in260 ITR 371?ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal was right indismissing the Revenue's appeals on the groundmentioned in the preceding question, while actuallythe Tribunal had only remitted the matter to theAssessing Officer to examine the details ofprocessing charges to find out whether they formedpart of the operational income of the assessee andtherefore, the Assessing Officer was free to examinethe details and decide upon the exclusion of 90% ofsuch receipts as per explanation (baa) of the Act?iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in dismissing the Revenue's appeals on atechnical ground mentioned in question No.1 wronglyrelying on the decision of the Madras High Court in154 ITR 344 instead of adjudicating upon thecomputation of the deduction under 80HHC made by theAssessing Officer, on merits?" 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 thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. ssk. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax LTU Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, 'C' Bench, Chennai, 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 thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. ssk. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax LTU Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, 'C' Bench, Chennai, 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 001. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, SR.No.76384+1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate, SR.No. 76378 TC(A) Nos.419 to 421 of 2010 Kak(16/10/2019)